The American Spectator

Reader Mail

Moving On

11.10.06 @ 12:01AM

(Page 3 of 4)

THE L WORD
Re: W. James Antle III's Old Fusion?:

Just one question for Libertarians who might be angry at the social conservatives in the coalition. What are you gonna do, put up more Libertarian candidates, like you did in MT and MO? By the way, the rest of us Republicans (and I'm more Libertarian than conservative, by the way) thank you for new Senators Tester and McCaskill. Social conservatives are finally learning that the good isn't necessarily the enemy of the perfect. When are you libertarians going to set aside your childish, desperate need for a purity that just gave us all a liberal Democrat controlled Senate? THX for that, by the way.

And about Dick Armey. I love him as a principled conservative, and admired him as a party leader. But in this case I have to agree with Richard Land. Just shut up, Dick! Now's not the time to be fragging our own lieutenants. Would you rather wander in the wilderness for another 40 years? Republicans aren't the enemy, Democrats are!
-- Tim Jones
Cordova, Tennessee

Mr. Antle's "Fusion" column pretty much nailed the inconvenient fact(s) that some factions on the right don't get along any too well. As a "Small-L" libertarian, I find James Dobson an intolerable, intolerant and highly sanctimonious pontificator. There are some points of the so-called "moral" agenda have made me feel most disquieted and uncomfortable -- the California congressional creep who wants to ban RU-486, the Morning After pill, and the just defeated pandering numbnut from the GOP who wants to ban Internet Wagering. And, if Dobson's buddy, Randall Terry (of earlier "Operation Rescue" fame) had it in his power, he's stated that he'd ban all kinds of contraception. Of course there were those other moral superiors who have illustrated the desire to protect us from ourselves by trying to ban a number of classic books from the libraries -- and even "Where's Waldo" (because of a cartoon topless woman laying on her stomach on a cartoon beach)!

It's not just Dobson. Jimmy Swaggart, Jesse Jackson, Pat Robertson, Al Sharpton and Jerry Falwell also make my skin crawl.

As long as they have the audacity to think of themselves as spokesmen for how they feel we should conduct our lives, no thanks -- I'll remain as far removed from such supercilious asses as possible.

And, oh, Dick Armey. He hasn't impressed me either way, good or bad.
-- Geoff Brandt

The Libertarian party is a long way from holding important public office, but, unlike other third parties, they are becoming quite significant. Troublingly, some advances are now being made to align this important party with the Democrats. I worry about this important segment of voters, because they are quite influential to the Republican Party. It is impossible for the Libertarians and the Republicans to work together indefinitely, eventually, the Libertarians will be fed up with the control that the Republicans want and the Libertarians may grow larger and realize they do not need the Republicans anymore.

Even though the Democrats have no real agenda, they are united against the Republicans, which has managed to put them all on the same team and win elections. Watching the Libertarians move away from the Republicans only further fragments the Republicans. Such a move can be a crushing blow to conservatives and could lead to more liberals in power who wish to socialize our healthcare and raise our taxes. (Not to mention, give backrubs to terrorists as they stroll across our borders.)

The participation of the Libertarian party is quite important and I hate to see them part ways with the conservatives. I truly hope the two can work together, somehow.
-- Adam Jones
Arlington, Texas

The dispute between so called libertarians or "libertarian conservatives" and traditionalists or "social conservatives" described in W. James Antle III's article goes back as far as I can remember (which as a 50 year old who supported Ronald Reagan while in junior high school is pretty far). My take on this dispute, which is only reinforced by Mr. Antle's article, has always been that those who characterize themselves as libertarian "conservatives" have always been more committed to an extreme version of the libertarian agenda, amounting merely to a desire to facilitate the ability of a minority engage in deviant behavior, than to any broader vision personal liberty, let alone to any philosophy which could be characterized as conservative.

"Libertarianism" as I understand it, and as described by Mr. Antle, must be distinguished from a principled commitment to individual freedom and a system of ordered liberty such as that established by the United States Constitution, as it was written and has been formally amended, not necessarily as subsequently "interpreted" by the Supreme Court. The Constitution did not establish, nor would the vast majority of the American people ever support, some sort of absolute license for every individual to engage in deviant behavior. Rather, the Constitution recognizes a general right of the individual to be left alone by the Government, subject however to proper exercise of Government authority, Federal, State, and local. The Constitution not only provides a mechanism for the federal government to impose itself upon Americans in certain limited areas, but also respects and reserves to the States their preexisting authority to exercise what has come to be known as a general "police power" to regulate conduct within their borders, subject to the guarantee that this power will be exercised by a "republican form of Government" in each state.

The basic assumption behind the Constitution is that, except for certain specific limitations (e.g., imposition of ex post facto laws or bills of attainder) the citizens of a State, acting through the legislature, have the authority to impose restrictions upon the behavior of people within that state, restrictions which may far exceed those approved by libertarians. A certain broad set of values, including a desire for personal liberty, was assumed by the authors of the Constitution to be held by the majority of the people within the United States. However, they did not attempt to set those values in stone within the Constitution, or set up the Judicial Branch as the primary guardians of those values. Rather they relied on the people, acting within the Republican framework of the Constitution and their State governments, to promote and protect those values, or to promote a different set of values or priority among those values if they so desire.

The Constitutional jurisprudence of the last century has turned the assumption of the Framers on its head. Court decisions at every level have, time and again, thwarted the right of the majority of the people, acting through Republican procedures, to govern themselves, and to make their own decisions concerning the appropriate balance between personal freedom and other important values, or even to advance those aspects of personal freedom (such as the right to bear arms or contribute money to a political candidate) not approved by liberals. These Court decisions often discover a Constitutional "right" to engage in a particular behavior, such as abortion, homosexual sodomy, production of child pornography using virtual imagery, or defacing the flag, which had been prohibited by the legislative process. While these decisions may have marginally increased personal freedom for a minority of Americans, to engage in a few specific types of deviant behavior, they undermine the very foundation of Republican Government, which in turn undermines the people's ability to protect the liberties, and other values, which they most prize. While "libertarians" may believe that, all things being equal, the cause of freedom would be advanced by allowing two homosexuals to marry each other, if they are willing to see this come about by judicial fiat, or are opposed to the efforts of the people of a state, through proper republican procedures (i.e. a ballot initiative to amend the state Constitution), to preempt or repeal the judicial fiat, they is no friend of the cause of personal liberty in any larger sense, let alone deserving of the label "conservative." The conservative cause is probably better off without such "libertarians" in any case, and conservatives ought not even to consider compromising their principles or alienating any part of their base in order to appease them.
-- Steven Kelly

Jim Antle left out an important piece of data in his libertarian-traditionalist article: the Libertarian Party cost the GOP control of the U.S. Senate.

Letter to the Editor

topics:
Taxes, John Boehner, Religion, Islam, Abortion, Books, Constitution, Law, Supreme Court, Iraq, Israel, NATO, Conservatism, Libertarianism, Immigration, Energy, Oil, Unions