Are Republicans turning into libertarians?
Last week's Tea Party protests had their origins in the libertarian movement. Although many conservative groups were eager to co-opt their purpose, the core of the message -- anti-tax, anti-big government -- was about as libertarian as it gets. Participation in the rallies was also proportionately quite high in areas like New Hampshire and the Interior West, which are traditionally more sympathetic toward libertarian concerns.
We can argue about the significance of the tea paries and we can argue about whether they represent the way forward for Republicans. But they are just one manifesation of what seems like an increasing drift toward libertariansim within the party. Consdier also:
-- A new Gallup survey suggests that 80 percent of Republicans think that big government is a bigger threat to the government than big business, versus just 10 percent who think the opposite. This represents an enormous partisan split from Democrats, among whom a majority think that big business is the greater threat. Moreover, the partisan split has grown significantly since 2006; it has now become almost a definitional issue for Republicans.
-- The Republican alternative budget could be considered a somewhat radical experiment in libertarianism, dramatically slashing taxes while promising to balance budgets -- an achievement that would only be possible if the size of the government were cut enormously. Meanwhile, the Republicans, with help from some Democrats, stuck into the budget debate an amendment to curb the estate tax, which will cost the government about $100 billion in revenue annually.
-- Republican insiders are increasingly uncertain about whether gay marriage, which was such an important issue for the party over 2000-2004, is any longer a winning issue at all for them. Reaction to the Iowa Supreme Court decision was surprisingly muted in conservative circles. Meanwhile, at least one prominent Republican presidential candidate, Utah's John Huntsman, has come out in favor of civil unions (although not gay marriage itself).
-- If gay bashing is becoming less in vogue among Republicans, it's unclear which other cultural issues -- areas where Republicans sometimes favor bigger, more statist government -- might take its place. Yes, there's always abortion. But I'm surprised there hasn't been more anti-immigrant sentiment, as often happens when jobs are scarce; perhaps the Republicans' poor performance among Latino voters on November 4th might have scared them away from that issue. Marijuana legalization seems to be gaining some traction (although more among pundits than policymakers), but about half the conservative commentariat (see Glenn Beck, for instance, who calls himself a libertarian) seems to embrace it.
Maybe you see a pattern there and maybe you don't. But of the roughly four different pathways the Republicans could take in the post-Obama universe -- toward Ron Paulesque libertarianism, toward Sarah Palinesque cultural populism, toward Mike Huckabeesque big-government conservatism, or toward Olympia Snowesque moderation/ good-governmentism -- the libertarian side would seem to have had the best go of things in the First 100 Days.
4.21.2009
Are the Republicans Going Galt?
by Nate Silver @ 1:36 PM...see also conservatives, libertarians, messaging, meta, values
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)

103 comments
"Republicans see big government as the biggest threat to government.."
While it wouldn't surprise me at all to hear something like that uttered by some of the more prominent republicans (palin), I think you had intended something else.
:)
That said, I look forward to the republicans trying desperately to re-cast themselves as libertarians. Good luck with that.
I wonder what costume they'll try to squeeze themselves into when they lose another 3-5 senate seats in 2010.
I have a hard time believing that "big government" is really what they have a problem with. I think it's just the government that their political faction doesn't control.
The teabagging thing did have kind of a Ron Paul flavour to it (eewww).
Interesting that a higher percentage of DEMS think that "Big Labor" is the biggest threat than Reps or Inds. Is that difference statistically significant?
Nate,
you're forgetting the furor that some GOPers made in response to Obama's defense "cuts". They are still the party of big defense. As long as that continues, there is no prospect for a drastically smaller government, unless it means cutting our social safety nets. That is a very unpopular position, BTW.
Does anyone else see a partitioning of the Republican party coming? Not just "rebranding" but an actual split between the conservative-right, a more moderate right of center, and possibly some sort of libertarian scion? If Dems keep control of congress through 2012 and manage to win the presidency again in 2012 & 2016, I don't see the Republican party surviving that.
On the gay marriage issue, the TV box was full of speculation this morning that Miss California deep-sixed her chances of becoming Miss America with the anti-gay marriage answer to the question posed by some guy named Hilton (I don't know who this is but I'm assuming he is some sort of pop culture queen).
Putting aside any commentary on my part about the legitimacy of the whole pageantry thing, it seems telling that she should be the loser from the state that passed Prop 8.
Maybe the Whig party is due for a comeback.
Whining about taxes that are the same or lower than what you paid under the guy you voted for, is not a political cause. It's a cover for xenophobia.
One big issue with the Republicans is that they now claim to be against big government but they have led the charge for increased government interference in our lives for eight years. I suppose with deregulation you could claim that that is removing government but the civil rights restrictions and growth of the military is growing government.
I suppose I am naive to think that people will realize that the stated policy of the republicans to be the party of small government is completely at odds with their actions most of the time.
Is it just politics to reframe your message to get votes while never taking and action consistent with the message.
The libertarians haven't had any luck with their message either, by the way.
Let's consider two possibilities:
1. The Republicans are embracing Libertarianism.
2. The Republicans are just reflexively saying no to everything, opposing everything the government must do simply because the opposing party is running that government.
How would we tell the difference?
It does kind of seems like the Republicans are always in favor of small government when they're out of power...
@Nate: TYPO ". . . a bigger threat to the government than big business. . . ."Should be threat to the COUNTRY, not to the GOVERNMENT.
If only they would go Galt and let this administration clean up the trash heap the last few decades has caused.
It would be intersting to know if they really think that Big Government is a threat or just that "Big Government controlled by the Democrats" is a threat. I bet about 50% of those 80% would not mind if the Rs came back into power and started banning abortion and replacing the constitution with the Bible.
I would agree that a split is coming, the Sarah Palin-esque uneducated branch cannot co-exist with a right thinking libertarianism.
-Brandon posted as follows:
Does anyone else see a partitioning of the Republican party coming? Not just "rebranding" but an actual split between the conservative-right, a more moderate right of center, and possibly some sort of libertarian scion? If Dems keep control of congress through 2012 and manage to win the presidency again in 2012 & 2016, I don't see the Republican party surviving that.I disagree with you. The Republican Party survived the Goldwater debacle in 1964 and the Democrats survived the drubbings of McGovern and Mondale. If we had a Parliamentary system - especially one with any degree of proportional representation - there would be several more significant parties in the U.S., but our "first past the post" system in which the President has such disproportional (and I'd say, unconstitutional) power has militated against there being more than 2 viable parties for almost the entire existence of the Republic. Suggesting that's likely to change is a radical thought that I will continue to consider unlikely, unless it actually happens.
another typo ..."the significance of the tea paries..."parties, not paries
There has always been three stools within the Republican party
Defense (weird coaltion)
Social Conservatsiim (south/bible belt)
Libertarianisim (Mountain West)
As far as the direction of the party. You can't really make any comparisons. Currently there is still alot of anger. Its similar to the Ds in April of 2001.
In April of 2005 noone seriously thought Barack Obama was a presidential candidate.
Bottom line it is way too early to be reading anything into this politically.
The main point is a majority and a majority of independents think Big Government is a bad idea. The rumblings and movement on healthcare seem to support this. The extreme left is already giving Obama flack for signaling a willingness to moderate on Health Care.
Isn't it ironic that the party that embraces those who don't believe in evolution is also embracing the Social Darwinists? I'm looking forward to the coming love-fest between the religious right wackos and the civil Libertarian extremests who want to privatize everything from the post office to the military, and are completely comfortable with gays, guns, and all-term abortions.
The biggest threat to our country is the political duopoly that currently exists.
Republicans think Big Government is a threat to Big Business. Democrats think Big Business is a threat to Big Government and Big Labor.
NO ONE IS LOOKING OUT FOR YOU THE INDIVIDUAL CITIZEN.
Except yourself.
Vote third party.
To be frank, I think that this is all so hilarious one can only shake one's head.
This is a party (GOP), that constantly chastises Dems for having policies based on Karl Marx when they are now on the verge of adopting policies based on Ayn Rand (a soviet immigrant). The irony is hilarious.
Let's just do a quick go over of what's just occurred over the last few months:
You have an economic policy (laissez-faire capitalism) which recreates the same mistakes that produced the Great Depression - check.
You claim to be all about individuality, but yet you get in bed w/ the Religious Right who is all about using the state to enforce religious beliefs, which you as an individual are completely against - hypocrisy, check.
You are a party that is all about the deconstruction of government b/c you are against any form of a collective, w/out realizing that there are some problems that the individual cannot handle alone - check.
That's the fatal flaw w/ Libertarianism. It sounds good rhetorically, but it is a disaster when applied in the real world.
My point is if you want to go on the extreme, then most libertarians can be seen as anarchists. THAT will go over w/ the general public very well...
As an independent myself, I don't think these guys have any chance b/c of how they view presidents like FDR (who they call a socialist every chance they get) and completely piss on the policies that he enacted to keep this great nation going.
All in all, their ideas suck just as much as the GOP's. Barry Goldwater and Reagan are both turning over b/c the legacy that both built have just been prostituted all for the sake of political influence and monetary gain.
...and at the end of the day, that's what this is all about - MONEY!!!
The Cato and Reason people will protest that libertarianism equals Ron Paul. To them, libertarianism has roughly two and a half strands. One is the strand advocated by Ron Paul, Lew Rockwell, the Von Mises Institute, and the Libertarian Party; it's deeply racist and ruralist, and calls for states' rights because of the Civil Rights Act. With fellow travelers like Ayn Rand, it has a very authoritarian fascination with the will to power and great individuals. Despite its often liberal and anti-authoritarian language, it is deeply culturally conservative. Ron Paul's 1988 Presidential candidacy was the result of an attempt by Murray Rothbard and Lew Rockwell to wed libertarianism with Southern cultural conservatism.
The second strand, advocated by Milton Friedman and Virginia Postrel, and Cato and Reason, is far more urbane. It's more suburban than urban or rural, often very culturally liberal, and more moderate on fiscal issues. Following Milton Friedman, this strand embraces monetarist economics; Ron Paul libertarianism is Austrian. This strand supports free trade; Ron Paul libertarianism often opposes it on populist grounds. It's this kind of libertarianism that helped Republicans lock the Northeastern suburbs from WW2 to about 2000, and which the Republicans will need to appeal to to be able to win a Northeastern state ever again.
The complicating factor is that the second strand is really a strand and a half. There's a split there between the official position of Cato and Reason, which is dovish and consistently culturally liberal, and the more common culturally liberal/economically conservative voter, who is often hawkish and supports harsh policing measures to fight drugs and crime. Reason opposes the war on drugs; the kind of Republican who appeals to the suburbs supports it. Cato wants all zoning restrictions abolished; suburban voters want them retained to protect property values. Usually what they end up doing is pretend they agree - e.g. Cato pretends zoning is something only inner cities do, and rarely publishes anything about social issues - but they really don't. They're broadly moderate-to-conservative people who are pro-choice and pro-gay rights, but have little more in common.
You left this out: by far, the biggest "Tea Party" was in Atlanta, where pseudo-Libertarian Neal Boortz is the most popular talker and where the Republican-Libertarian ideology has been strongly prevalent if secondary to the social conservatives (see also: John Linder; Bob Barr).
The 15,000-person crowd in Atlanta was almost certainly a melange of Libertarian-leaning Republicans in the latter-day Barr mold from Cobb and Cherokee counties, leftover John Birchers from Cobb, and the rich whites from Fulton (the Midtown-Buckhead area). That could easily produce 15,000.
The swing in the Republicans towards small gov't is neither co-opting the Ron Paul agenda nor a thoughtful move based on reasoned ideas. It is just a reaction against the perceived "big-spending, government can get us out of this mess" plan espoused by the Obama administration. To cast it as an intellectual move is not accurate. It is just a knee-jerk reaction against whatever the Democrats are doing. And that is the really sad part in all of this. Bush's big-government that did nothing to promote things that Americans wanted (clean air, healthcare, world-class infrastructure, safety in the world and at home) yet ate massive amounts of the nations wealth. It failed not because it was big, but because it was married to socially conservative ideology that regulation of the markets, big business, health care, protection of the environment etc were bad, while massive military spending, diversion of funds to friends companies and corruption were all good, and were themselves a reason to be in power.
The same goes for Sarah Palin populism - it is a two-faced manipulative ploy devoid of intellectual merit and designed only to cynically manipulate voters. The GOP is showing no signs of charting a direction at all, they are simply blowing in the wind against whatever they perceive the democrats are doing. They have become opposition for the sake of opposition.
Oh, Nate, I hope you're right. But I can't help but see this as more populism masquerading as libertarianism.
If Huntsman runs for president and the Republicans refrain from excoriating him for his support of LGBT rights - they had no compunctions about ripping into Ron Paul over his opposition to the Iraq War, among other things - then I'll be pleased as punch with the direction the party is heading. But so far, I haven't seen very strong indicators that the party is trending toward real libertarianism (maximizing LIBERTY) rather than tear-down-the-socialist-Democrats populism (politicizing selected "liberty").
But yes, if Huntsman runs, I'll probably be voting for him in the Republican primaries of 2012.
Maybe I'm just cynical, but I simply see this "trend" as a long standing Republican belief in small government -in the times when they don't control it. They whined and moaned about big gov't when Clinton was in power too, but as soon as they got control of the the Presidency and Congress spending skyrocketed.
I expect Republicans' interest in libertarian-style small government waxes and wanes in direct proportion to how much control they have of the government.
When the damn liberals are in charge and trying to brainwash children into believing in evolution, small government sounds really good. When the Republicans are in charge again, the urgent need to employ thousands of prosecutors to go after makers of entirely consensual pornography will suddenly become apparent.
Gingrich's Law: If any question has the possible answer 'Because they're whining Republican crybabies', then no further research is needed.
I'm pleased to see social conservatism dying. With that out of the way, Democrats can focus on defeating Republicans on issues of the economy and government spending. And defeat them we will.
I've kind of scanned the comments here but I disagree with the assertion that the Republicans are becoming more libertarian. It's easy to talk about how you are for responsible, smaller government when you are out of power. The key is when you are in power and the Republicans didn't act like libertarians then and their base didn't take to the streets in "tea-parties" even though their party was spending recklessly. Republicans are still fans of huge defense budgets and nation-building and are in favor of government intervention on social issues. The fact they are slobbering all over themselves on taxes, even though 99% of us are getting a tax cut, is more partisan politics than any new found principle.
A strange poll to begin with. As far as I can tell, there was no "other" or "none of the above" option.
You MUST think that one of these three entities poses a "big threat" to the country. You have no other choice!
The success of the Republicans has been in combining elements of libertarianism with social conservatism. Just one of these two parts of the coalition is too weak to do much by itself. I think what we're seeing now is the GOP starting to rip at the seams with the libertarian side beginning to want to distance itself from the social conservatives.
It'll be interesting to see what happens next, but my guess is that in order to stay a national party, the GOP will need to find a way to retain both groups.
I am surprised about the republican indifference towards Big Labor, at least in this poll. After all, the one issue that has consistently made a difference between Democrats and Republicans is the question of labor rights. Since Theodore Roosevelt left the Republicans in 1912, the party has been THE party of big business. It didn't have to turn out that way, but since FDR was a Democrat and Hoover was a Republican, Republicans have been forced to run against the New Deal ever since. You can be sure that there'll be even fewer republican votes for EFCA than for the Stimulus Bill. So when you're thinking about the future of the Republican Party, you have to ask yourself who is going to form a coalition with Big Business.
In the end, true libertarianism will never work as a GOP platform because the occasional populist rants threaten the position of Big Business. To make a republican coalition work, populist rage had to be channeled into fear of communists (From McCarthy to Palin's talk about socialism), fear of other religions and races, and the masculine fear of castration (Like, who would ever vote for that wimp Kerry? Or that wimp Gore? Or that wimp Dukakis?)
In addition, libertarians would be a serious threat to the military-industrial complex. Maybe that might explain why the most libertarian major presidential candidate so far was a bit of a rabble-rouser (Goldwater).
Its interesting that a year ago the Republican Party seemed to view Ron Paul as a bit of a nutcase, but now they are doing everything they can to be more like Ron. I think that the most likely 2012 GOP coalition is a strange mix of libertarians and far right cultural conservatives. I am beginning to think that Sarah Palin may yet emerge as a dominant force in the 2012 election year.
fred said...
I would agree that a split is coming, the Sarah Palin-esque uneducated branch cannot co-exist with a right thinking libertarianism.
Sarah Palin can entirely embrace the polar opposites of libertainism and the active "social conservative" agenda (outlawing abortion, War on Drugs) because she doesn't feel the need to rationalize the two against each other. Which is correct in that to the faithful she doesn't need to. That, mixed with their own brand of fiscal big government (with military equipment purchases leading the way), is the myth the modern Republican party is based on.
I hope that libertarianism is the way that Republicans are headed (although I doubt it) because I think that could push the Democrats towards becoming more pro civil liberties and that would be a very good thing. If the one thing the parties could agree on is civil liberties, I'd be very pleased by that. It's without a doubt time to legalize all drugs.
Big pot-Gold would of got them.
How about an "Active" Govt.? Or a "Just" Govt.?
Of course "Big Government" gets slammed. If by Big you mean a just and active Government then call me a Democrat.
Isn't Nate a libertarian? Or he has some libertarian streaks in him, unless I'm mistaken.
Anyways, I'll admit it. I'm a Ron Paul sort of guy. I'm more socially liberal, but nonetheless I'd describe myself as a Republican-Libertarian or vice versa.
I'm also part of the younger generation (late 20's), and I see more Republicans my age who could be described as libertarian than in the older generation.
It's not so much root for whatever Republicans stand for anymore, it's more about what is it that Republicans stand for. The funny thing is that a good number of these Libertarian-Republicans are former neo-conservatives or democrats or independents.
As for whether this will last or not. I think two things to consider is how long will Ron Paul's ideas continue to be adopted by young people, and also how many of the people in a position of power believe in these principles the next time the Republicans take power.
If somehow in the next 4 years, the GOP took power, I think many of the same faces would still be there, and they'd resort to their old big government habits. I think this Galt movement would take a generation to grab hold.
I'm not sure how many Republicans could stomach a Libertarian foriegn policy. At least not without Rush's approval.
Good. They will continue to lose as Americans continue to realize we need some socialism.
Ron Paul will be 77, I think, in 2012, but he looks healthy as a tortoise...actually he does have a sort of turtle-like head.
And it begs the question, what exactly is a libertarian? Because Ron Paul is a libertarian, but so is Bill Maher. Maher's libertarianism is more civil libertarianism while Paul is more fiscal. And younger people these days are more libertarian oriented, but it is not so much the anti-tax stuff, but the live and let live philosophy. At this, the Democrats are better than the Republicans. If anyone watched the Libertarian party presidential debate last fall, you would be hard pressed to find a lot of common ground between them and the Bush/Reagan Republican party of today.
"Despite the unpopularity of Obama’s policies, the Republican Party is mired in bottom-basement poll numbers. Tens of millions of libertarian-leaning Americans are “politically homeless.”"
Are you morons serious?
Try 60+% approval since day 1!
Try the even greater support for each of Obama's policies!
Man I'm happy these morons are taking over because they are even more out of touch than current Republicans.
We keep trying to ascribe meaning to the actions of the "leadership" of the GOP beyond the mere clutching for power. Big government and big taxes always poll as concerns of self described "conservatives." The perception of government as bloated and taxes as generally bad are two of the major reasons people ever become Republicans in the first place.
Ron Paulites are likely seen by Newt & co. much the same way the "Moral Majority" was seen by Reagan's handlers - a ready built set of operatives who can be useful. If the party apparatus, having an excuse to finally shed the cultural conservative albatross that led to the last few election cycles, simply embraces the more moderate aspects of Paul's agenda, it may be easier in the short run to keep things competitive. But it seems it would have a natural ceiling, as Paul himself and his true believers won't tone down their nuttiness - letters of marque, flat taxes, secession as good idea to discuss, etc. - the way the cultural wingnuts kept themselves under wraps in the early years of Reagan.
@JR,
Being from GA myself - that's the problem w/ the pseudo social conservative/libertarian movement. They have no idea that Ayn Rand was an aethiest and a soviet immigrant. Its so funny it seems almost surreal.
This is the bible belt and they are basically adapting philosophies that go against everything they claim to stand for (the movement I just listed above).
All in all, the Tea Parties were nothing more than Anti-Obama rallies. Nothing more, nothing less.
And when you boil it all down to its basest in nature, these people are pissed essentially b/c Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, and FOX news told them to be.
So to recap: you have the bible belt going along w/ the rhetoric of an aethiest, soviet immigrant that's been brought to them on a daily basis by the forms of outlets that they listen to.
Can someone please tell me how these people (the movement I listed above) are any different than wrestling marks?
Its calleed Rugged Individualisim and its a cornerstone of the Mountain West or any frontier in general. Leave me the heck alone. Don't take my guns. I'm not looking for any handouts. I believe in hardwork. If two fruits want to get married I don't have a problem with it as long as they don't try to jam their agenda down my throat.
I am a rugged individualist through and through.
With a little bit of compassionit conservativism thrown in. A safety net and support for people under 18 who can't help it if their parents are irresponsible morons and deserve a fighting chance to make it in society.
It's amusing to watch as the Republican Party disintegrates, isn't it? They made a gigantic blunder by flatly opposing Obama from the start, and by not firmly slapping down Limbaugh when he wished failure upon the new president.
They have nothing to offer except a scornful, bitterness straight from the sore loser playbook. Democrats need to keep plugging away on positive changes. If they'll do that, much more success lies ahead, and much more discomfort for the opposition.
Why, at some point, the Republicans might start to feel like they are drowning. Simulated, of course. Haha!
"The rule is perfect: in all matters of opinion our adversaries are insane."
Mark Twain (1835 - 1910), in Christian Science
"I have never made but one prayer to God, a very short one: 'O Lord, make my enemies ridiculous.' And God granted it."
Voltaire (1694 - 1778)
Atheism they wouldn't get, but the virulently anti-soviet, anti-collectivist, pro royalist tendencies of Ayn Rand fit in quite nicely with the aspects of the GOP who saw the Cold War as the absolute pinnacle of American power. AKA "American Exceptionalism", which is still powerful enough that even President Obama claimed he believed we are an exceptional people in the Saddleback forum.
Still, I do agree that the ignorance of Ayn Rand's true background and motivation seems to be pretty widespread among those suddenly embracing John Galt and other bad literature. Now, if they'd only read some Steinbeck, Dos Passos, Sinclair or anyone else who saw how crappy life was for most people under original laissez faire policies and they might have to think again.
Impossible, what with the current batch of foreign policy and economic extremists inside the party. Mooseburger and the Wasilla Hillbillies is the logical next step for the teabagger party. Forget the fact that Moosegurger has become toxic in her own state, she's now doubling down on fringe right-wingnut social views, which the country is moving away from. Also, both she and her hubby have ties to witch doctors and successionists.
Like Bill Maher said, Mooseburger is "a real gut check for the Republican party."
On the other hand, if Brian Schweitzer were a Republican, his candidacy could possibly modernize the party platform. Or at least drag it kicking and screaming out of the dark ages, and into the 20th century.
@ Nova,
I think that that is the general mood of most of the country. The problem that your standard generic Democrat has or had pre-Hurricane Katrina was the fact that they cow-towed to the Iraq War and Bill Clinton got caught w/ a stain on a blue dress ("See, we told you he couldn't be trusted!!! If he's lying about that, who knows what else he's lying about!!! Do you think Ronald Reagan would do something like this?!!?" - standard talk radio conservative). For guys like you and about 75% of this country who really don't give a damn about politics, why should we take a dem for his or her word when they aren't trying to explain or defend themselves.
For people like me, and I'm not saying I'm any better - I don't buy into anyone trying to sell me on the wonders and merits of modern-day conservatism which is nothing more than a point of view. There's no factual basis to it and its the rantings of a guy who got his a$$ beat in the 1964 general election against LBJ.
The reason why conservatism took over is simple: Ronald Reagan. He built a coalition based on 5 strands -
a.) libertarian conservatism
b.) social conservatives/ Religious Right
c.) fiscal conservatives
d.) Rockefeller Republicans
e.) Southern Dixiecrats turned Southern Republicans = the Southern Strategy crowd.
Add it all up and its hypocritical bs if you ask me...
...but that's just my opinion...
Well, as worthless as it is in the big picture, I've personally experienced this amongst the handful of republicans I know. Two of them, an older married couple, now sides with the democrats more than the republicans, and the others (who during the last election cycle were even-minded and not extremist at all) are now hitting me up to vote Ron Paul 2012.
"Do you actually support Ron Paul, or is this overcompensating for the opposition being in power now? Did you really drop all of your ideals you held in the last election cycle to just support the candidate who is as far as possible from the left?"
The GOP has always been the party of small government; this is not news, Nate. Nor is it particularly insightful. It is also a party that is home to the cultural conservatives, those who favor traditional morality like the kind expressed by the Miss USA runner up the other night.
Right now on the heels of Obama's manipulative victory thanks largely to a soporific campaign by McCoot/McCranky/McCancer, and the aided by a vast media apparatus, and benefiting from the financial collapse in September, many think that the GOP's governing majority is a thing of the past.
The hubris of the moment can be compared to the hubris of the past when Karl Rove (I think it was) spoke of the GOP's permanent majority.
Well, folk, there is nothing like years of high unemployment presided over by a President who is not only hostile to business but seemingly hostile to the very nation he governs to focus the attention in a negative way on the new guy.
Obama is counting on his celebrity status to maintain him in office, but I would not count on it.
His economic policies doom him to failure as much for the rhetoric that accompanies them as to their reliance on the failed policies of the past (those of the discredited Lord Keynes). He won't get so much as a recovery from his stim-u-less bill as he will a flattening out of the economy that will drag on for many months, if not years, certainly past the mid-terms. Unless Obama does something to restore the wealth that has been destroyed over the past year, both in terms of people’s home values and their financial assets, this consumer-driven economy is not going anywhere. Where’s the hope in that, Mr. Obama?
This is a so-called balance sheet recession and won’t be cured by funding ACORN , I can assure you. Nor will throwing a little asphalt around here and there make much difference. The people have tightened not only their wallets, but their assholes, and won’t unclench until more than a few green shoots appear in the fields.
This Recession will become Obama's Iraq War and the associated discontent will sink him.
Once the public becomes concerned for their own livelihood and wealth and focuses on the incumbent (rather than the Bush), it will surely turn a more critical eye towards Obama. Even the media will smell the blood in the water and the feeding frenzy will begin.
The anti-business rhetoric.
The blatant anti-capitalism.
The anti-Americanism and lack of pride in our country’s history.
The bowing before the Moslem King.
It all will not seem so quaint, but rather dangerous.
And it won't matter a fig whether you are a libertarian or a cultural conservative or a big-government compassionate conservative. All that will matter will be that we be rid of him, Obama. And rid of him we shall be!
(follow me on twitter: PeteKent01)
I favor small government too; at least when the country is not fighting off depression. Dems are not the answer, but certainly the REpubs are not either. And at least the former have the saving grace of a brilliant president, an aversion to dumbfuck wars, and the beginnings of understanding that foreign dependence on fossil fuels MUST STOP.
The biggest threat to the Democrats in 2010 ...is the Democrats. The ball-less behavior of Obama and Geither towards the Wall Street blackmailers borders on malfeasance. The Wall Street guys come to DC and cry poor - the Democrats say How Much? - and these whores leave with another trillion dollars in taxpayer money. These guys are clueless and don't realize what rapacious, theiving bastards they are dealing with. Grow a pair!!!!!!!!!!
(No, I'm not a teabagger. I voted for Obama in the primary as well as the general election. I've had enough.)
Wow. Angry, angry people. More rant than anything of substance, like a man shouting at the sea.
I think the GOP going into a libertarian position is the best thing for them and this country. The old coalition formed in the "Reagan Revolution" will no longer work with 24 hours news coverage, international communication networks, the internet and an inter-dependent global economy.
The libertarian perspective to civil liberties will appeal to secular independents and the fiscal policies will appeal to blue dog democrats. The only question is if the GOP has the stomach to remove the social conservatives from their platform. While vocal and organized, they are shrinking in numbers and hold an absurd line of political thought.
Thom Hartmann made a very important point, which was that the Boston Tea party was originally a protest against tax breaks for the monopoly of the day (the walmart of the day, if you will), the east india tea company.
see the king wanted to give the east india tea company a break on the tariffs, which would have put a lot of local tea businesses out of business as the market got flooded by monopolist junk...
so the people protested that the king was in bed with the large corporations and that really has a lot to do with the whole revolution in the first place.
so it is especially ironic when faux noise creates this AstroTurf roots protest, which is a fraction of the size of even some of the smaller anti-bush protests that we have seen in the last few years.
The publicity this thing is getting is just a condemnation of an owned media, following the republican party line.
It is time to get out of Iraq and let them get back to killing each other:
http://thinkprogress.org/2009/04/21/iraq-militias-glue/
The TROLL idiot PeteKent said...
Why perpetuate the vulgar sexual reference that the snarks on MSNMC and CNN put our there?
(MSNMC?????? Maybe the TROLL idiot was trying to make a reference a different network?)
Maybe it was because the teabaggers themselves called themselves teabaggers going to teabagging parties?
Of course, when they found out what teabagging means in some parlance, the teabaggers tried to put out the propaganda that the 'lib-rul' media was the first to apply the teabagging term to the 'tea parties'.
The major role the 'lib-rul' media played was giving the teabaggers a microphone so that they could show the world how much 'intelligence' they had in calling the teabagging parties as such, and in calling themselves teabaggers.
Mike in Maryland
My Blogger ID is http://www.blogger.com/profile/02848893412251095965
PeteKent, the Republicans have never really been a party of small government. That's a myth based on rhetoric, nothing more. Ronald Reagan and both Bush's, as well as Ford, Nixon, and Eisenhower, were big government Republicans. This we know from historical actions. If you just went by rhetoric, which most of their base does, then, yes, they are small government. But they are a big-government party that cowtows to big business. Nothing more. Stop trying to argue otherwise.
Why perpetuate sexual references that make fun of teabagging assholes who have never even experienced good sex?
Why?
Because it is FUNNY! Who didn't know this reference BEFORE the tea parties? Well, sexually repressed assholes...maybe?
That tiny minority amongst all groups who view Big Labor as a threat are folks who work at Whirlpool in Fort Smith. LOL Just kidding.
Bowing to a Muslim king...I can't believe he did that. I also can't believe he kissed that Saudi prince.
Oh wait...
http://nancymcnamer.blogspot.com/2009/04/bush-kisses-hugs-man-but-obama-not.html
@nova_middle_man
There has always been three stools within the Republican party
Defense (weird coaltion)
Social Conservatsiim (south/bible belt)
Libertarianisim (Mountain West) .
Those have been loose stools for some time now, and they might become bloody stools in 2010 and '12.
Most Republicans supported Bush's warrantless wiretapping.
To put it very starkly: if you support a government's spying on its own law-abiding citizens, you are not opposed to Big Government.
@nova_middle_man said...
Its calleed Rugged Individualisim and its a cornerstone of the Mountain West or any frontier in general. Leave me the heck alone. Don't take my guns. I'm not looking for any handouts...
Yeah, I'm a Rugged Individualist. I live by my own strength of will and character and smarts, and I don't need no damned handouts that the lazy busturds in the Eastern cities depend on.
Now, get outta my way. I gotta get this application for a farm subsidy into the mail, put in a bid for discount grazing rights on public lands, and check on the publicly-funded irrigation lines to my ranch. See yuh, ya damn-librul freeloader!
where is the coverage of 4/20. you want to talk about a grass roots movement this is it.
i am sure there were 3-4x as many people at 4/20 rallies as at teas parties.
two big one locally. one at 3000 in a location where they had 5000 with a major radio talk show host as speaker and promotor.
the other had 10000 in a community that had a couple of hundred for a tea bagging rally.
this issue is a natural for the republicans. legalizing marijuana would increase individual freedom and stop big government control of free enterprise.
the medical marijuana issues is something all this states rights can hang there hat on.
if the republicans want a come back pot makes more sence then taxes.
Consdier also:
I don't see the Libertarian element coming through. Libertarians would favor 1) Choice; 2) Legalize marijuana; 3) cutback defense spending -- like the F-22.
The circular firing squad isn't finished yet. We need for the Repubs to eat more of their own before we can know what emerges.
-- Goldwater at least had some definition for his views; --- another Wm F Buckley - not in this lifetime.
Hey Nate - I was at your talk last night at Iowa State University and I really enjoyed it. Thanks for coming out to our school and putting on this presentation
While I myself am not a libertarian, I would find them much more palatable as the political opposition than the GOP.
The GOP has become heavily infused with one particular form of fundamentalist christianity's ideology. The pro-life stance, for example, is anathema to the very principles of libertarianism-as is a ban on Equal Marriage, racial profiling by police or at the airport, all the various wars on abstract concepts, from the drug war to the terror war. And its this fusion of faith and politics that has managed to poison both. Religion has lost alot of stock with young people these days-perhaps because christianity had to give up primarily focusing on the poor when the GOP told it that would upset the Eastern Banking Establishment-too much like socialism, you see. So now, we see the GOP putting words into Jesus' mouth that he never said and redacting what he did say. Jesus never said "Bomb the Arabs" or "Ban gay marriage". Abortion has existed since time immemorial, ever since some privative witch doctor first noticed that eating a certain herb makes a pregnant woman spontaneously abort her fetus. Yet Jesus didn't say anything about that at all. He did say war was wrong-but since the GOP is in bed with the military-industrial complex, they had to edit that part out too.
I think, perhaps more astutely than the rest of society, young gpeople can tell when they're being lied to. The older you get, the more your survival becomes contingent on what people think of you-at least until you retire that is. So the very young and the very old are probably the only people in America that are truly free to tell you to fuck off-which is why we so often do. You can't fire the retired or the unemployed, so what are you going to threaten us with?
And the young are becoming increasingly disgusted with religion and the GOP. The failed marriage of the two has resulted in something so repulsive that those of us who don't have to fear it can hardly contain our nausea.
By divorcing itself from fundamentalist christianity, the GOP can survive. Much hay was made out of McCain's age during the past election, and while a few young Republicans are around-notably Bobby Jindal-the only person they could find that stood even a slim chance with the electorate is almost an octogenarian, as were most of his supporters. As time passes so will the GOP's base-unless they do something to gin up their popularity with the young.
Which requires a return to the fundamentals of libertarianism.
Statler N Waldorf said...
However, the person who most frequently points out that you are a troll is also, in fact, a troll.
Hey Statler!
Got an answer about what went wrong with the Baehr v. Lewin case in Hawaii?
Don't want to discuss it because it's ancient history?
Mike in Maryland
My Blogger ID is http://www.blogger.com/profile/02848893412251095965
Why MiM is on the Do Not Call List
Still waiting for Statler to respond to what went wrong with the Baehr v. Lewin case in Hawaii. It's a case of people going in with all barrels blazing, and the tactic backfired, not only in Hawaii, but nationwide.
Either Statler's afraid to admit his strategy is not always correct, or he's got such an ego that he can't admit his strategy is not always correct.
Why did the strategy fail in Hawaii, Statler. I'm still waiting.
Mike in Maryland
My Blogger ID is http://www.blogger.com/profile/02848893412251095965
I just read Baehr. It seems it was decided in 1993, so the outcome could be different today. It also argues that gay marriage fails under strict scrutiny when applied to equal protection - and that is just wrong.
"80 percent of Republicans think that big government is a bigger threat to the government than big business"
It should be "threat to the country", not "threat to the government".
Don't many businesses, both big and small, depend on GOVERNMENT contracts to stay in business?
Seems our Government is currently owned and operated by these businesses.
My brother works for a contractor for NASA. Well, actually, he ends up working for whatever contractor gets the bid. He has been through several in his 20 years there.
Republicans just don't really understand very much. Propoganda, yes, they are very good ad believing.
If the teabaggers are complaining about 'vulgar' use of their name... well, they made up their cause. They didn't have to piss around with teabags, did they? They were quite aware of the double entendre when they were knowingly asking the nation to 'teabag Obama' (nudge nudge, wink wink).
As for Pete Kent bitching about Obama 'bowing to the Moslem King', it's called diplomacy. You might have forgotten what it looked like in the Bush years.
Hersect: Women Scientologists
Can we get an analysis of graduation rates and politics?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30251275/
"And it won't matter a fig whether you are a libertarian or a cultural conservative or a big-government compassionate conservative. All that will matter will be that we be rid of him, Obama. And rid of him we shall be!"Yup! Free of Obama you shall be. . . in January 2017!
Until then? Read it and weep!Oh, and during this week of Massive coverage of the Astro-turf "Tea-bagging" parties? Obama's popularity rose 3%. Congressional Republicans sank 2% while Congressional Democrats rose 1%; and the Democratic party rose 1% while the Republican party sank 3%.
But, all that's BOUND to change, right! It's inevitable that Americans will learn to love the Republican idea of massive government cuts right during the worst deflationary spiral since the Great Depression!"But there’s at least one more form of damnification that has me really worried: the paradox of deflation. An individual company or worker can preserve a business or a job by accepting a lower price; but when everyone does it, we get debt deflation — a rising real burden of debt, which weighs on the economy — and also start to have deflationary expectations built into lending and investment decisions, which further depresses the economy. And once you’re in a deflationary trap, it’s very hard to get out."
@ PeteKent: The next time you have a really good thought, save it for yourself and savor your own smug superiority. Thanks.
@ jroc133: I disagree with your assessment - it was Nixon who brought conservatism to the Republican Party, not Reagan. Think politics, not policy. The Southern Strategy was already in-place and working 12 years prior to Reagan's victory. Reagan's success was due to the Southern Strategy. Reagan merely recognized the policy angle of the strategy.
I suggest that there are (were) only two strands to the Republicans: Northern and Southern. Northern Republicans are the Rockefeller types, they tended to believe in good governance, social libertarianism to the degree that they just accepted that Americans were good people and their character was their own and not the government's business, and more or less fiscal true conservatives - try to keep taxes low through small budgets, but always tax rather than borrow.
Southern Republicans may or may not have had economic libertarian tendencies, but they were clearly disenfranchised conservative Democrats - racists whether they acknowledged it or not, xenophobes, and recently politically activated evangelical Christians. The success of the Southern Strategy played to the cleavages of the Democratic Party (progressive northern Dems versus conservative southern Dems) for national political gain. When the Republicans brought on the Southern Democrats (initially in '68, but not completely until '94 because the realignment was delayed by Watergate and the southerners, Carter, and to a lesser extent, Clinton), Northern Republicans started feeling alienated.
It is clearly the Northern Republicans that have realigned into the Democratic Party in 2006 and 2008 and will be solidified there in 2010. You don't need five strands to get at this.
*
The other shoe to drop for the Republicans will be the Interior West. These folks may or may not share the social conservatism of the rest of the Republican Party, but they are staunchly on the side of Libertarians when it comes to property rights and smaller government.
IF the Libertarians are smart - and it is not altogether clear that they are; after all, they have formed a party of people that are skeptical of government because of the free rider problem and have no idea why their party is not better organized - they would put all their chips on the table and bet on the Interior West. I am talking about Colorado, Utah, Idaho, Montana, Eastern Washington and Oregon, Northern California, and Nevada.
With the morons in the Republican Party clamoring about going more conservative yet (and consequently becoming more Southern still), the regional nature of the Republican lends itself to splintering geographically as well as ideologically. The people who really know about tea parties (Libertarians) should not be trying to make the johnny-come-lately teabaggers the target of their political expansion.
It's easy to be the party against "big government" when you're out of power. "W" himself claimed to love small government, yet managed to greatly increase the size of government once he was in office.
The problem is the the Republican Party is enthralled with Big Business, and Big Business only wants a smaller government when it comes to regulations and taxes and not federal handouts.
The best comment on the Tea Parties I heard was on "Wait, Wait, Don't Tell Me." I believe Adam Felber stated that the Tea Party was a protest that was thought up before anyone knew exactly what they were protesting.
Argh. Typos are killing me. "Consdier," "manifesation," "paries."
I think its very interesting how the Independents agreed with the Republicans on this issue. On most of the other definitional issues, the Independents side with the Dems. Makes me think this is definitely the way forward for Repbulicans.
Forget about resisting gay marriage and defending torture. Attack big government instead.
I support small government. I supported ron paul, but i did not vote for mccain. My main problems are still the federal reserve, the military industrial congressional complex, and the erossion of the Constitution. Long ago i came to the realization that the problem was not right vs. left, but the state vs. the people.
The honest people on the left and right need to push issues that serve the people. An example is HR 1207 the federal reserve transparency act of 2009. This u.s. house bill currently has 71 co-sponsors.
Drew Westen discusses many of the same points here.
Why do liberal haters assume that the tea party protesters were unaware of the connotations of the term "teabagging".
Teabagging is not only a term used to describe an unsanitary sexual act, it also describes a type of humiliation activity that players of first person shooter video games will sometimes engage in when they virtually "teabag" a defeated opponent.
So teabagging is as much about disrespecting and humiliating someone, as it is about a sex act. Seen in that light, teabagging Washington DC makes perfect sense.
Most Republicans who lean more libertarian than fundy only care about their own liberties. They don't care about no-knock raids, or wiretaps, or racial profiling, as long as they can assume that it isn't going to happen to them (which it isn't, as long as Republicans are in power). Not all of them, or even most of them, really have anything against gays, but they aren't gay themselves, so they couldn't care less about them. So this libertarianism, other than that which is bound on all sides already by Republicanism, is unlikely to develop legs.
OTOH, there's a word for libertarians mainly concerned with civil rights, due process, and freedom of expression. They are called liberals.
Come on people, just because Ayn Rand was from Russia does not mean her philosophy, Objectivism, resembles or supports socialism in the least.
To be more blunt, it is NOT ironic that Reps are citing Ayn Rand (a former Soviet) even as they criticize the Dems for being communist. In fact, those two activities, in and of themselves, are pretty much as consistent with each other as you can get.
Don't forget the growing "culturally left" strain of libertarians that are far more urban, including the Northeast and generally show up as "independent" as they despise republicans. Call it the "South Park" wing.
In terms of strategy the social conservatives have already realized that politics was a failure. They will either drop out completely, or realize that a limited government at least allows them to go off into the hills and live how they want.
Bottom line, economics is an issue where pragmatism dominates and is therefore never that big a divide. It's the cultural divide that drive the real shifts in party, region, etc.
I believe conservatives and libertartians are coming closer. In the past, I have felt that there should be a loose alliance between the two. Now, I think we need to make real efforts to unite. The left is united. So, common sense needs to be united. I don't care about gay marriage (it's up to you). I don't care about pot (it's up to you). I hate the bailouts. I am conflicted on abortion, but I am not losing sleep over it. I believe that the Constitution's main purpose is to protect me from you. I think we should move back to isolationism (militariliy), but maintain extremely strong defenses. Fair Tax works for me, as work should NEVER be punishe...er...taxed. Small government works for me. So, I don't know, guess I am more of a libertarian than conservative. BUT...These two factions need to unite.
"a type of humiliation activity"
Um. Where do you think the FPS term came from? Why do think it involves squatting on your dead opponent? It all goes back to that "unsanitary" sexual activity. Whether you're using it in the FPS sense or the directly sexual sense, you're still talking about testicles in mouths.
Nate,
two things:
Maybe I am misreading you, but why describe Republican opposition to much of the homosexual agenda as "gay bashing"? In a quick perusal of the site, I don't see your background (probably missed it--are you now, or have you ever been a...journalist?), but you do claim that you try not to let your political views influence polls, etc. So, I assume you want your rhetoric to be neutral somehow--i.e., fair and balanced, dare I say?
Is this what passes for debate and dialogue now? To disagree with a lifestyle is now the same as "gay bashing?" It's an odd thing--the more those left of me claim a 'tolerant' POV, the more often it seems they label dissent as though it was ad hominem. There are many reasons to be concerned about the influence of the homosexual lobby, not the least of which is the growing influence it is having in stifling free speech by those who oppose their views and lifestyle. Is opposition "bashing"?
Second, Republicans are not anti-immigrant, but most of us would like reason and law to dictate the admission of immigrants, and the formulation of immigration policy.
Two strikes...too bad...too sad.
Sam Hendrickson
OMG, comments like that of jroc133 & others, demonstrate an horrendous lack of understanding of Rand's ideas and motivations.
She was not so much anti-communist, as pro-Capitalist. She supported, with the most fundamental logic ever suggested, Individual Rights (for any & all peaceful citizens)!
Please read her fiction and non-fiction rather than misrepresent her on the hearsay of others.
You guys do yourself and others a considerable disservice by spreading shallow gossip!
By the way, Rand rejected Libertarianism because it only promotes 'freedom' with no understanding of what it means, or of what it has to do with Politics. It's leaders hijacked portions of her philosophy without bothering to understand the "whys" she provided.
It is very odd to hear the party that created the big-government make-work bureaucratic boondoggles of the DHS, TSA and the Patriot Act call themselves opposed to big-government. The GOP has been the staunchest supporters of big-government since the election of Bush Jr. They want government control of virtually every facet of American life. There was simply no issue they believed couldn't be solved by radically increased spending and radically increased government authority. Of course it backfired miserably.
They are now reaping what they have sown. Paul Craig Roberts was dead on when he said, "Conservatives have been won around to the old liberal view that as long as government power is in their hands, there is no reason to fear it or to limit it. Thus, the Patriot Act, which permits government to suspend a person's civil liberty by calling him a terrorist with or without proof. Thus, preemptive war, which permits the President to invade other countries based on unverified assertions. There is nothing conservative about these positions. To label them conservative is to make the same error as labeling the 1930s German Brownshirts conservative." If Republicans truly didn't want government to have this kind of power then they shouldn't have spent the last eight years doing whatever it took to acquire it. The reason they did is because they truly believed they would never be out of power ever again.
I find the many comments posted here interesting in how various people who are left of center see the Right and the generalizations they have. Also the embedded "hope" that the Republican party will split and a new era of Progressivism/New Dealism will be spawned is fascinating. The same fragmentation could be seen in the Democratic Party during the 80s. It is all wishful thinking.
The Libertarian flavor of the GOP is very, very small. The devotees to Ayn Rand is even smaller. Average Republican voters (and I know quite a few) have no connection and no real knowledge of such Ivory Tower musings. It's fun to discuss, but all the John Galts already vote Libertarian. How's that working out for them?
Every party is a party of factions that need to work together. When a party suffers two defeats in a row and loses two branches of government there is of course going to be a purge and a reevaluation.
McCain did not grasp that the middle class, middle America, silent majority or whatever you want to call it is the key to victory. He did not actively seek out of the middle class and middle class insecurities and their economic anxieties. Slashing government pork is all well and good but it doesn't swing elections.
A Republican agendan and voice that stresses the middle-class, coupled with social convervative traditions based on family and community and strong, non-Wilsonian defense can and will win elections. As long as the GOP avoids the Huckabees, the Palins, and the Pauls they can be successful again.
From cell phones users to see the specific situation of occupational segmentation in 2009, accounting for 19.5% of students dropped 21.2 percent over last year, other types of occupations than those last year, the proportion of Internet users cheap cell phones increase. White collar crowd from last year's 29.2% increase to 38.9% this year, accounting for 9.7 percentage points up to replace the student groups cellphone users as one of the biggest occupational hierarchy; blue-collar crowd from last year's 13.9% to 18.9% this year, accounting for rose by 5.0 percentage points, showing that mobile phones users by a group of students to the occupational groups a significant trend in the development. Ereli advice that, cheap cell phones and mobile phone users Internet users monthly income distribution of age, education, occupational distribution has strong correlation with high spending capacity of white-collar workers and some students in the crowd will be a huge cell phone china online potential consumer groups.
By comparing the traditional Internet users, Internet users to iResearch found that the traditional white-collar-based, cell phones wholesale, corporate general staff accounted for 18.9%, higher than the 5.6% of the wholesale cell phones users accounting; and discount cell phones users in the years students and blue-collar workers accounted for significantly more than the traditional Internet users, respectively, accounting for 19.5% and 18.9%, higher than the traditional Internet users Students and blue-collar workers accounted for 7.8% and 5.1% respectively.
The survey found that consumer 3G wholesale china from the crowd of view, the buyer 25 to 40 years old mainly white-collar workers, accounting for about 40%, followed by consumer groups of students, accounting for about three into. According to statistics, 3G wholesale products in sales, compared with a 2G mobile phone sales are still a wide gap between, but since June has been, 3G mobile phones increase in the average monthly buy products for more than 50%, "11" period due to holiday business, the increase of more than 150%. Pk that the "11" after the peak sales of 3G handsets likely to usher in more stable growth.
Post a Comment