The American Spectator : Con-fusion

Text Size

Con-fusion

By W. James Antle, III on 2.28.12 @ 6:10AM

Rick Santorum strains the libertarian-conservative alliance.

The day before the Michigan and Arizona primaries, Rick Santorum took to the pages of the Wall Street Journal to lay out a supply-side tax plan coupled with spending cuts to balance the budget. That is to be expected of a leading Republican presidential candidate, which Santorum has become. But for the former Pennsylvania senator, the proposal had an added side benefit: dispelling the charge he is a fiscal liberal.

Santorum isn’t a fiscal liberal, of course. During his congressional tenure, the National Taxpayers Union gave Santorum an average career score of 75.2 percent. That’s slightly higher than the average Republican score during that time period and much higher than the average for all his colleagues combined. It’s hard to imagine that Mitt Romney, whose surrogates are the ones painting Santorum with a liberal brush, would have done better. Newt Gingrich certainly didn’t (though Ron Paul did).

As Santorum reminded us in the recent Arizona debate, he “took one for the team” in voting for a massive expansion of the federal Department of Education via No Child Left Behind. He also was a team player in backing the unfunded Medicare prescription drug benefit, which was the biggest new entitlement since LBJ’s Great Society, and the 2005 energy bill, which sowed the seeds of Solyndra.

Most of Santorum’s fiscal transgressions were due to support for a Republican president’s domestic policy initiatives and parochial concerns (he backed the Northeast dairy compact, for instance). A handful of others stemmed from the “compassionate conservatism” of using statist means to traditionalist ends.

This doesn’t exactly explain away the defects in his record. Parochialism, partisanship, and misguided attempts to spread conservative values through the state contribute mightily toward government growth when Republicans are in power. But it does put those flaws in a context that makes Erick Erickson’s claim that Santorum is a “pro-life statist” seem overly broad.

One reason Santorum’s occasional big government votes get so much attention is that he is running as the principled conservative alternative to Romney. That case becomes harder to make when, during the Bush era at least, Santorum and Romney supported some of the same government-growing legislation. But there is one additional important reason: Santorum has no use for libertarianism.

Like Mike Huckabee in 2008, Santorum is running on social traditionalism unleavened by libertarian principle. Neither man completely rejects Republican fiscal orthodoxy on taxes and spending. In fact, Santorum’s actual record is to the right of Huckabee’s. But in neither case do the two social conservatives base their support for tax and spending cuts in abstract libertarian principle.

Perhaps hoping to attract angry emails, Santorum once declared, “I am not a libertarian, and I fight very strongly against libertarian influence within the Republican Party and the conservative movement.” This is reminiscent of Huckabee complaining about the libertarian influence at the Conservative Political Action Conference. “CPAC has been becoming increasingly more libertarian and less Republican over the last few years, one of the reasons I didn’t go this year,” he said in 2010.

That’s not how Ronald Reagan spoke in an interview with Reason magazine in 1975. “If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism,” he said. Reagan didn’t endorse every libertarian precept or dogma. “We have government to insure that we don’t each one of us have to carry a club to defend ourselves,” he said. But Reagan recognized the right’s libertarian streak.

It’s a current in conservative thought every Republican presidential candidate has at least paid lip service to since the GOP nominated Barry Goldwater in 1964. (That is, until Huckabee and Santorum.) Even Pat Buchanan had a sizeable libertarian contingent behind his 1992 and ‘96 campaigns, drawn in part by his foreign policy message.

Modern American conservatism is the union of libertarian and traditionalist thought. The late National Review senior editor Frank Meyer called this intellectual marriage “fusionism.” Meyer explained that the two strains tend to be self-defeating when separated: “truth withers when freedom dies, however righteous the authority that kills it; and free individualism uninformed by moral value rots at its core and soon brings about conditions that pave the way for surrender to tyranny.”

Santorum’s anti-libertarianism manifests itself in the fairly exapansive view of state police powers he appears to endorse in his criticisms of, naturally, Griswold and Lawrence v. Texas (the latter decision struck down Texas’ anti-sodomy laws). The one exception is Santorum’s strong criticism of the state-level individual mandate imposed by Romneycare. Otherwise, he seems concerned only by the legal limits on government imposed by the Constitution rather than other principled limits on government power.

That might not matter if Santorum became president. But the effect of his candidacy has been to pull apart libertarians and conservatives. Already we see libertarian commentators mischaracterizing the mainstream social conservative view of contraception (and misconstruing Santorum’s position too). Some of Santorum’s social conservative supporters are equally hamfisted in their treatment of libertarians.

But conservatives and libertarians need each other. Without a conservative influence, libertarianism frequently becomes unmoored from the common good and the reality-based community. Conservatism, Russell Kirk wrote, is “negation of ideology.” William F. Buckley Jr. called it the “politics of reality.” Without libertarianism, conservatism often degenerates into Bismarckian welfarism mixed with moralism.

What some people consider warring factions of anti-drug warriors and sexual counterrevolutionaries others call the conservative movement.

About the Author

W. James Antle, III, author of the new book Devouring Freedom: Can Big Government Ever Be Stopped?, is editor of the Daily Caller News Foundation and a senior editor of The American Spectator. You can follow him on Twitter @jimantle.

Letter to the Editor View all comments (215) | Leave a comment Leave a comment

Clint| 2.28.12 @ 6:35AM

Uh Oh !

" Santorum’s Liberal Voting Record

A compilation by Brian Frank from the South Carolina Hotline blog:

Rick Santorum voted with Barbara Boxer with this: S Amdt 3230 – Gun Lock Requirement Amendment

Rick Santorum voted for H J Res 47 – Debt Limit Increase Resolution – Key Vote

Rick Santorum voted for taxes in the Internet Access Tax Bill

Rick Santorum voted for HR 1 – No Child Left Behind Act

Rick Santorum voted to confirm President William J. Clinton’s nomination of Alan Greenspan to be Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System for a fourth four-year term.

Rick Santorum voted for HR 3448 – Minimum Wage Increase bill which allows punitive damages for injury or illness to be taxed.

- Allows damages for emotional distress to be taxed.

- Repeals the diesel fuel tax rebate to purchasers of diesel-powered automobiles and light trucks.

Rick Santorum Voted to confirm President William J. Clinton’s nomination of Alan Greenspan to be the Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System for the third four year term.

Rick Santorum voted for the protection of Abortion Clinics

I would add that this list just scratches the surface of Santorum’s career-long liberal voting record. As Sen. Rand Paul said of Santorum to CNN on Monday:

“He voted to double the size of the Department of Education… He voted to expand Medicare and add free drugs for senior citizens and he has voted for foreign aid. Those are not conservative principles. Seventy-seven percent of the American people are opposed to foreign aid and Rick Santorum has voted for it every time it’s come down.”

florin| 2.28.12 @ 9:37AM

Feb. 28th...and now Rick Santorum is in Michigan pleading with Dems. to come out and vote for him. He knows Obama fears running against Romney so Santorum moves over to join Obama and his 'army' to defeat Romney..I thought Santorum had more integrity and character than that..he would, like gingrich, give Obama 4 more years in office rather than see Romney win the nomination...sad, very sad..and self serving.

Doctor Right| 2.28.12 @ 4:46PM

Obama does NOT fear running against Romney.

If you believe that, then you've bought into the Liberal narrative.

When dealing with Liberals, there is only one maxim to remember:

They lie.

Romney is the candidate Obama most wants to run against!

Why? Simple. If Romney is the nominee, then ObamaCare, Cap-n-Trade, and the "stimulus" are off-the-table. And...Obama can play class warfare.

If Santorum, a Catholic with blue-collar roots is the nominee, the Dems will need a new strategy. Santorum can attract the blue-collar Dems and Independents that have abandoned Obama. Romney can't.

Santorum would also be the 1st Catholic President since JFK, and the 1st Italian-American President EVER.

Don't buy into the hype. Obama wants Romney...NOT Santorum.

Alan Brooks| 2.28.12 @ 10:56AM

"massive expansion of the federal Department of Education via No Child Left Behind. He also was a team player in backing the unfunded Medicare prescription drug benefit, which was the biggest new entitlement since LBJ's Great Society, and the 2005 energy bill, which sowed the seeds of Solyndra."

A day will come when you'll wish you never heard the name George Bush.

Otis Cribblecoblis| 2.28.12 @ 11:53AM

The day I wish I never heard of Alan Brooks will come before I wish I never heard of George W. Bush.

Alan Brooks| 2.28.12 @ 12:59PM

Main question is:
Bush's 86ing from your mind will come eventually? Safe to say you are not particularly proud of his stewardship 2001- '08? Prefer not to think about it at all?

Pete| 2.28.12 @ 4:31PM

Why would this surprise you. Conservative's unlike Liberals will admit when they have been had.

Doctor Right| 2.28.12 @ 4:49PM

I'm proud of Bush's record between 2001-2008.

Unemployment was ridiculously low until the Democrats took control of Congress, he kept the country safe after 8 years of Clinton-administration mismanagement led directly to 9/11, and he sent our military overseas to kick Muslim ass.

What I'd prefer not to think about is the intellectual lightweight who currently sits in the WH.

The socialist guy with the Muslim name who hates his own country.

Muslims don't like gays...You knew that, right Alan?

skip| 2.29.12 @ 11:51AM

Bush = 2001 tax cuts

Bush = 2002 tax cuts

Bush = 2003 tax cuts

Bush = 2007 federal revenue up 44% from 2003

Bush = John Roberts

Bush = Sam Alito

Bush = no Al Gore

Bush = no John Kerry

Bush = unhappy Alan Brooks

TrueBlue | 2.28.12 @ 12:15PM

I noticed something about Representative Paul... The last two election cycles that he has run for president he sure has neglected to vote on a LOT of bills. What exactly is he getting paid for these days with all his time spent on his campaign? If he had any real convictions he would have stepped down from his position BEFORE he went to run for office. He is currently wasting taxpayer money by not doing the job he was elected to do.

Just a thought.

Alan Brooks| 2.28.12 @ 1:21PM

Just wait until there are riots at your convention next summer; and if riots occur at the Dem convention, so be it- Obama wants change, he knows blacks and others can benefit from change; perhaps you can't, but they can.

Pete| 2.28.12 @ 4:32PM

Nope, they will suffer most just as they have since Obama has been election. Obama has no love for black people at all which should be quite obvious to you by now.

Doctor Right| 2.28.12 @ 4:53PM

Can you please explain how blacks would benefit from riots?

Seriously. This isn't 1964. There's no outstanding moral imperative at stake.

If blacks want to riot en masse, it would NOT benefit them or Obama.

Floyd Looney | 2.28.12 @ 5:13PM

Please. They will suffer the most. Do you think the poor in Cuba, Venezimbabwe or North Korea are better off??

Mike Hawk| 2.28.12 @ 6:57AM

You voted for Bob (with one'o' ) Casey the Liberal Fast Eddy Spendell hack you TPINO dimbulb.

L. Ross| 2.28.12 @ 8:21AM

TPINO? That's a new one.

Timothy L. Pennell| 2.28.12 @ 9:33AM

I think it stands for Timothy Pennell In Name Only?
But, I'm not sure.
Remember who were talking about.
It could be something about Toilet Paper. Or TuPac.
No. Knowing Clint, and knowing how much he likes my comments?
I'm gonna stick with: It's probably something nice about Me.

Mac Jehoff| 2.28.12 @ 11:57AM

No Mr.Pennell, your ego caused you to wipe out on that one. Tea Party in Name Only is the LWJ (Libertarian Wack Job) main line bum bandit posting as Clint.

Timothy L. Pennell| 2.28.12 @ 3:41PM

Gee. Thanks Mac. I didn't know that.

I'm new around here.

Idiot.

Hit Shead| 2.28.12 @ 5:54PM

Funny thing about all this name referencing. You ever notice what your name would be if you just switched your initials?

Pimothy L. Tennell| 2.28.12 @ 6:17PM

What..?

Oh. I thought you were talking to me...

Con Chef (NB) | 2.28.12 @ 9:02AM

Make sure you remind him of that as often as you can, Mike. We're still reeling from the effects of Little Bobby Casey, the supposed pro-lifer & now Fast Eddie buying both the newspapers in Philly. Gee, you think they'll be objective?

Uh-oh! What's gonna happen when the fake-assed conservative Ru Paul throws his support behind the equally fake-assed conservative Mittens to get a VP slot for himself or his kid? You realize if that comes to pass, Clint, I'm gonna take a belt sander to your face everyday about it.

Hawk's right. You're a Pee-Pee Party of One.

Mike Hawk| 2.28.12 @ 11:07AM

Those papers are leftist propoganda sheets as it is. If Fast Eddy Spendell and his gang buy them, it won't make any difference anyway. As for the empty suit Bob (with one 'o') Casey, we have a true Convervative, Sam Rohrer to nominate to beat him. (If anybody makes a live sighting of Casey, we want to know as he;'s been MIA for about 5 years now.) CLint will probably vote for Casey again and probably doesn't like Sam Rohrer either.

Con Chef (NB) | 2.28.12 @ 11:26AM

Hell, he (Lil Bobby) was MIA when he was a legislator HERE in PA. Nice to see some things haven't changed. I went & saw Roher speak when he was in Pittsburgh. The man's got MY vote!

Mike Hawk| 2.28.12 @ 11:44AM

Bob (with one 'o') Casey never held any legislative offices. He was auditor General and State Treasurer, but nobody ever saw him in his offices except as State Treasurer, when he showed up to sign paychecks once a month. Nobody ever knew where he was the rest of the time. He was MIA. Still is. As has been said, an empty limo pulled up in front of the Capitol building once and Bob (with one "o") Casey got out.

Clint| 2.28.12 @ 5:58PM

That's A Lie.

You're A Damned Liar, Hawk.

I Refused To Vote For Democrap Lib Boy, Junior Casey.

And, I Refused To Vote For Big Government Statist, Ricky Specter-Santorum And RINO-CINO Poster Boy Arlen Santorum-Specter, As Well.

Big Government Ricky Santorum's Record On Voting For Earmarks, Even The Bridge To Nowhere, His Support For The Lobbyist "K-Street Project" , His Tariff Votes, Medicare Prescription Drugs, No Child Left Behind,Etc. Is Gonna Sink Him With Tea Party Patriots.

The Tea Party Rebellion Heads To A Brokered Convention.

Floyd Looney | 2.28.12 @ 5:13PM

Those newspapers aren't objective now.

Old Soldier| 2.28.12 @ 7:10AM

To this libertarian leaning conservative, Rick Santorum represents the absolute worst tenancies of the GOP.

His fiscal irresponsibility as a Senator is well documented. He took a lot more than one for the team - it was a pattern of big spending and union protectionism. We are in a debt crisis and Santorum is one of the culprits, not the solution.

Combine that with his "social conservatism" in which he wants to use his vastly expanded government to push his own social agenda.

I've held my nose a few times (Bush, Dole, McCain - okay, EVERY time since Reagan), but I won't do it for Santorum. If he is the nominee, the Republican Party has outlived its usefulness and needs replacement.

chuck| 2.28.12 @ 8:27AM

OS,

The fact is that it is down to Mittens and Santorum. I'm still supporting Newt, but I think he's basically a goner. Paul has no chance, and will never be Pres.

Do you really think that Mittens is more conservative than Santorum? Can you support Mitt over Rick?

Old Soldier| 2.28.12 @ 10:01AM

Yes I think Romney is slightly more conservative than Santorum - not that either of them are to the right of McCain or Dole.

Romney was at least pro-business and fought a somewhat successful defense against the Democratic super-majorities in the MA Legislature. Santorum was part of a Republican majority in Congress that went on a spending spree. Which is worse? Both are depressing.

Floyd Looney | 2.28.12 @ 5:15PM

Mitt? Mr Gay marriage, mr Gay Youth Pride, Mr RomObamaCare.... conservative?

wow, you are blind

Old Soldier| 2.28.12 @ 7:55PM

Back to definitions - I am indifferent to gay rights either way. Its all relative. Mitt is more fiscally conservative than Mr. Forced Unionism / Medicare Drugs / Bridge to Nowhere.

wodiej| 2.28.12 @ 10:08AM

Ah, how quickly you dismiss Gingrich so early in the game. It is people like you that cause us to have to choose inferior candidates. You've given up just as things are gearing up.

chuck| 2.28.12 @ 3:30PM

What part of "I'm still supporting Newt" did you fail to understand?

Sean| 2.28.12 @ 8:42AM

Santorum is a statist. He not only is against libertarians that want their individual rights and freedoms, but he is against the Constitution. Those votes against Right to Work, for No Child Left Behind, ect. show that he doesn't give a damn about limits to federal power.

Con Chef (NB) | 2.28.12 @ 9:15AM

He voted against NATIONAL Right to Work Legislation. And last I checked, are you not elected to represent your constituents? He represented one of the most union-heavy states in the Union. You think if he was a Senator from TN, he would've voted "no" on that bill?

Let's boil this down. Santorum won as an unabashed conservative in a state known to NOT be a bastion of such leanings. How did he do this? He appealed to the union rank & file, the same people who were once called Reagan Dems. Despise unions though I do personally, they are American jobs. As much blame as you can put in the laps of the unions, you can also lay in the laps of linguine-spined business owners who LET these unions run roughshod over them. A good example of people who DIDN'T knuckle is Boeing. And look at the trouble they got for it.

Finally, I look at it like this: Mitt's no conservative. Newt's flamed out, I think. And Ron Paul will get the nomination about the same day that the Earth's gravity reverses. Santorum is the only logical choice. And I think he'd FLAY Obama.

Old Soldier| 2.28.12 @ 10:02AM

That pandering to the unions bought him a 19% loss. Why a lib-lite when you can have the real thing?

Con Chef (NB) | 2.28.12 @ 10:08AM

He wasn't the only long time Repub who lost his seat in that round of elections, if you recall.

Old Soldier| 2.28.12 @ 10:34AM

My point is he wasn't voting in the Senate on principle, but on political expediency. Compare the right-to-work states versus forced union states on job growth. It would obviously benefit PA to be right-to-work. Either Rick was too dumb to realize this, or he was afraid of losing votes (which he lost anyhow).

Con Chef (NB) | 2.28.12 @ 11:29AM

You're right on PA benefitting from right to work. I just see that as a long, hard slog. The unions have been entrenched here since Moses wore short pants.

And I see your point. I just still believe he's the best man for the job. There IS no "perfect candidate."

Mac Jehoff| 2.28.12 @ 12:19PM

Right to work legislation should be a state issue, not federal. Senator Santorum was correct in voting against National Right to Work. I also recognise that Senator Santorum voted in favour of legislation that is outside the purview of Leviathan.

TrueBlue | 2.28.12 @ 12:11PM

However it is not in the federal government's job description to be deciding that, it's for the states to do. Same with abortion, as much as I hate it.

You can try to make the argument that the founders couldn't have forseen the need for people to band together for protection against big business owners (which would be kind of silly given that that is what government is; people banding together for protection against powerful groups, ie. the rest of the world) but the FACT still remains nothing in the Constitution says the government has the power to determine how business in the country is conducted outside of copyright enforcement.

Even if Santorum believed RTW would benefit his state (which it would, I support the law myself) if his constituents communicated their disapproval of the law he is morally bound to go along with their decision as their representative. That's the thing about being an elected official in this country, you represent the people that elected you, you do not (or at least SHOULD NOT) tell them what is best for them.

Old Soldier| 2.28.12 @ 12:43PM

I think right-to-work is a Constitutional issue - "freedom of association". I've worked in a forced union shop and cannot imagine how it is Constitutional for an organization to force me to pay them.

Severn| 2.29.12 @ 10:29AM

>"I think right-to-work is a Constitutional issue"

Libertarians think that everything is a Constitutional issue. If they had their way they'd scrap all other branches of governemnt apart from the Supreme Court, which they'd staff with libertarians.

relhazio stegnarsson III| 2.29.12 @ 11:06AM

And what, exactly, is wrong with that ?
We'd end up with pretty much the government the framers intended.

Charles| 3.4.12 @ 7:56AM

Indeed it was a fatal flaw to conflate pandering to union members with empowering the union bosses.

submandave | 2.29.12 @ 12:29PM

"Combine that with his 'social conservatism' in which he wants to use his vastly expanded government to push his own social agenda."

This is the prototypical argument against socon candidates, but I would appreciate a few specific examples to go with the ad hominem.

- DOMA? Lots of GOP (and Dems) support that one.
- Traditional Marriage Amendment (or whatever they're calling it)? Useful as a talking point, but will never have the real traction needed to go anywhere. (am I detecting a trend here?)

I think this meme, WRT Presidential politics, plays more upon the voter assumption that the President will enter into office intent upon shaping the country based upon their personal vision without regard to Constitutional limits or propriety. While this is certainly true of the current occupant, Santorum has, actually, stated that he didn't see legislatively pushing his moral beliefs as President as a proper role.

Concerning his anti-libertarial statement, the fundamental distinction of the libertarian wing of the GOP is not its fiscal position, but its more libertine position. Viewed in this light, the comment isn't as sinister as it is often made to be.

I am not a Santorum supporter, and reasoned arguments can be made against the mad on his legislative and voting record. I do not, however, believe the more strident warings of him as the evil theocratoc boogie man are warranted.

Clint| 2.28.12 @ 7:12AM

That's A Lie.

You're A Damned Liar, Hawk.

I Refused To Vote For Democrap Lib Boy, Junior Casey.

And, I Refused To Vote For Big Government Statist, Ricky Specter-Santorum And RINO-CINO Poster Boy Arlen Santorum-Specter, As Well.

The Tea Party Rebellion Heads To A Brokered Convention.

Mike Hawk| 2.28.12 @ 8:40AM

You elected Bob (with one "o') Casey by not voting. Your are a clod.

Con Chef (NB) | 2.28.12 @ 9:16AM

Hey, dumbass, I know this is hard for a 19 year old kid to understand, but staying home ensured Little Bobby Casey's election. Thanks, putz.

Mike Hawk| 2.28.12 @ 11:09AM

TPINO probably can't vote in the Republican primary anyway, since he probably isn't registered as one. He can just STFU.

Clint| 2.28.12 @ 5:45PM

You're A Damned Serial Liar, Hawk.

I've Been A Registered Republican Since I Was Old Enough To Vote And A Tea Party Patriot Since The Organization Started.

The Tea Party Rebellion Heads To A Brokered Convention.

Occam's Tool| 2.28.12 @ 11:54AM

Everyday, I deal with the mess that Liberal Policies have created; policies that allow families to easily fall apart and stay apart; policies that destroy children---in the 1960s, families stayed together, and in the top 5% of income earners, they still do---but those Liberal idiots (the majority of the top 5%) push an ethos that destroys families in the lower middle class and create an underclass.

Santorum gets this. Romney really doesn't.

Claypoole| 2.28.12 @ 12:23PM

I seem to remember, in the late 80's/early 90's Dan Quayle making the same point. He referenced "Murphy Brown," the TV series wherein the beautiful, solidly employed, affluent Murphy has an out-of-wedlock baby and gets along just fine. As a matter of fact, the whole situation seemed quite glamorous. But for a poor, un- or underemployed woman, emulating Murphy Brown is a ticket to--probably lifelong--poverty.

Clint| 2.28.12 @ 5:49PM

Hey, 4-F Neo-Chickenhawk Coward, Con Job Frankel, I Didn't Staty At Home. I Voted For Our Congressman ,State Offices,Etc.

Your Mancrush, Bibi Wasn't On The Ballot Either.

The Tea Party Rebellion Heads To A Brokered Convention.

Doctor Right| 2.28.12 @ 4:56PM

Clint,

You do know that your man-crush, Ron "Surrender-Monkey" Paul has a deal with Romney, don't you?

Imagine that!

"Mr. Constitution" himself cutting a political deal (gasp!!!) with the EE-VIL "Mittens" Romney!!!

Kind of makes you want to jump out of a window, doesn't it, Clint?

Clint| 2.28.12 @ 5:51PM

Dr.Reich's The RINO-CINO,Who Said He'll Vote For The RINO-CINO Frontman, Mittens Romney.

" Mr. Paul, a 76-year-old congressman from Texas, sees his three Republican rivals as more or less the same politically. He can be tough on Mr. Romney, whom he describes as a flip-flopper with a dubious political core.

“He’s been all over the place on some of this stuff,” Mr. Paul said in a recent interview near his Texas home. But he seems to segregate those views from his personal feelings for Mr. Romney, whom he sees as a steady, dignified personality whose devotion to wife and family reflect his own values. "

The Tea Party Rebellion Heads To A Brokered Convention.

Doctor Right| 2.28.12 @ 6:18PM

You're NOT in the Tea Party, Clint.

I checked.

Remember?

Severn| 2.29.12 @ 10:32AM

>"The Tea Party Rebellion Heads To A Brokered Convention."

And What Wonderous Results Do You Expect To Arise From A Brokered Convenion?

Who Do You Imagine Picks A Nominee In A Brokered Convention? You?

WM| 2.29.12 @ 7:11PM

That was my initial concern about a brokered convention as well, but I am starting to rethink it, because we the people still have the final say. The brokers will have so much pressure on them, they will have to nominate someone who is considered legitimate by the conservative populace. This could definitely work out. The thing is, we have nothing to lose. Even if they nominated a turd, how would we be any worse off than now? I say it's worth a shot.

Fiscal| 2.28.12 @ 7:15AM

Modern conservatism is NOT a negation of ideology, but the most extreme support of it. That is a change from the past. Modern conservatives are much more supportive of big government dictates of Christianity than ever before. Social conservatives comprise more of the Republican party than ever in history. In fiscal doctrine, they ascribe to a philosophy of only tax cuts when a realistic analysis of the budget shows that only significant cuts in spending PLUS some modest tax increases will solve the budget problem. I've heard few complaints about the fact that both the Romney and Santorum plans create more debt than the Obama plan. Only ideology leads one to conclusions like that.

This wholesale change is supported by the fragmented media that has developed with cable stations like Fox who consistently misstates the truth (and also by MSNBC, of course). If the public does not receive balanced information, they will tend towards ideology rather than reality.

Even the ghost of Reagan has been changed ideologically. He embraced libertarianism, and after his first big tax cut, raised taxes 11 times because he could not stomach the debt. However, even he failed because the GDP benefit from his tax cut never covered the losses included therein.

I find the demonetization of libertarian thought disturbing. What could be more moral than letting each individual make their own decisions not forced by government fiat? A government fiat for abortion or marriage only makes government larger and more corrupt. You cannot legislate true morality.

Instead of arguing for a Christian theocracy, moving MORE towards libertarianism is the better answer to our current problems.

Old Soldier| 2.28.12 @ 7:38AM

Amazing how nobody in the mainstream of either major party ever talks about freedom and liberties any more.

Drek| 2.28.12 @ 7:50AM

Reagan raised taxes for political expedience, and for no other reason.

Fiscal| 2.28.12 @ 9:00AM

Exactly!!! And we all think he was a very good President.... Hmmmm......

canuckistani| 2.28.12 @ 10:08AM

Not all of us.

He opened the doors to voodoo economics and we have been living under that yoke for 30 years.

When you see income disparities part like the red sea since his first term, you know it is the core of this country's middle-class decline. Bubbles have become the norm. From S&L to Asian Flu to Longterm debt to dot-com to insanely high VIX for years.

With 2/3 of the economy consumer spending, the sheer nonsense of voodoo economics is more striking than ever. RR started the FTA and most favored nation status for China. 41 actually had apprehensions but was too weak to lead.

With toadies like Newtie and Ricky doubling down on failed policies, we have to be smarter and more reasoned than this.

Al Adab| 2.28.12 @ 10:25AM

Sorry, voodoo economics was a term George Bush coined when he was campaigning against Reagan for the 1980 nomination. Judge it by its fruits. Between 1983 and 2006 (you recall what happened in the election of 06?) the economy continued to expand without interruption, the nation prospered, the citizens prospered, business expanded, employment grew and even a democrat president found himself forced by a GOP 94 "revolution" to declare (falsely but for public consumption) the big government era over.

So you just keep it up my social welfare friend. If you tell the lie often enough it becomes the truth. Why you do not understand Liberty to be of more value than materialism is beyond me, but the Marxists (I do not know if you are one or not) always seem to want to judge by material well being. Freedom is worth more than pottage for it allows opportunity.

Fiscal| 2.28.12 @ 11:31AM

You seem to forget the recessions of 1990 and 2001. The theory that tax cuts stimulate economic growth is just not true just as the theory that if you do not raise taxes you'll force spending to be cut. The economy runs in cycles due primarily to the exuberance and herd mentality of financial markets. This results in a boom and bust cycle for which government is only a minor factor. Just as Reagan wasn't responsible for his improving economy, Bush wasn't responsible for the big recession of 2007 and Obama is not responsible for the fact that jobs have been gained during his administration but lost during Bushes. Private enterprise and global influences are the primary factors in economic growth. That's why the government should not either provide tax cuts that increase the deficit or stimulus for that matter. The economy is primarily driven by private enterprise with market forces.

That's why our approach to government spending and taxes is wrong. We need to decide what we want government to do for us and then pay for it. If it were up to me, I'd have the government do much less -- but that's me.

Al Adab| 2.28.12 @ 11:50AM

Fisc:
Your final paragraph finds you and I (and I suspect many others) in agreement. The strategic issue is how do we get there?

I suppose since we define a "recession" as a fiscal quarter of negative growth, you are technically correct. However, since those were VERY short lived and represented only a small readjustment of markets and business we can ignore them as indicative of policy needs. In fact, as you atate, why expect government to micro-manage the economy at all? Low regulation and low tax policies - with limited government - should indeed be our goal.

Moe Blotz| 2.28.12 @ 12:34PM

When President Reagan signed into law the massive tax cuts passed by the Tip O'Neil congress, revenue to the US Treasury doubled. When George W. Bush signed off on the 2001 tax cuts, revenue to the US Treasury increased once again. When tax rates increase, tax revenue declines. When tax rates decrease, federal revenue improves. You have to get after your congressman and tell him, "Stop the @*#*$&%{>?! spending."

DRed| 2.28.12 @ 2:08PM

It's a good question, Al. While I'd disagree with the second half of Fiscal's last paragraph, that's the kind of question that should be up to the people to decide. I think it's fairly obvious to all of us that Congress does not answer to the will of the people. And if you look at why Congress doesn't respond to popular will, I think you see it's because they have very little incentive to.

canuckistani| 2.28.12 @ 12:31PM

Me too, but my upbringing tought me to pay my bills. The GOP does not even want to do that.

Doctor Right| 2.28.12 @ 5:00PM

"Voodoo" economics is also called "Supply-side" economics.

It's also called "Common sense". It's how capital works in a free market system.

And if the GREAT Ronald Reagan hadn't championed free-market, supply-side economics, you'd still be living in Craplakistan.

Everything you post is the opposite of reality.

Doctor Right| 2.28.12 @ 5:07PM

Income disparity is GOOD.

It means that people have a chance to become super-wealthy, wealthy, well-off, comfortable...or whatever.

"Income equality" is how morons try to explain economics.

These morons somehow think that the guy who sits on his ass and does nothing should have just as much as the guy who works his ass off from morning till night.

Countries that practice "income equality" are usually 3rd-world cesspools governed by idiots and kleptocrats.

These types of policies cause the citizens of these 3rd-world cesspools to flee their home countries and decamp to ours...or places like Canada...where they practice the economic policies that you claim to dislike...Like "supply-side" economics.

But you're not too bright, so I guess the irony is lost on you..?

Al Adab| 2.28.12 @ 6:20PM

...or as Lincoln put it, "That some become rich means that others may become rich." ...or as JFK put it, "A rising tides lifts all boats."

Simon Templar| 2.28.12 @ 12:26PM

Fiscal,

I am getting real tired of this drivel about a christain theocracy, the slams against social conservatives, and the myth you, liberalatarians, create that somehow government has been a tool of conservatives to advance social conservativism, traditional and family values as if people have been under assault from a christian sharia cabal.

The other claim you make is even more ridiculous. You can not legislate morality?
Ninety percent of law in fact does just that. The current wave of law passed by liberals in the past 80 years that has created such phony rights as abortion rights and a whole host of radical attacks on traditional values and morality, is in fact legislating morality, their morality.

Your attempts to divorce the fundamental building blocks of a Republic as devised by our founding fathers is completely Un-American and yes, you are not a conservative by any stretch.
You argument like most liberals is a based on the twisted understanding of the seperation of church and state written by Jefferson and taken as if it were actual law when it is not. Your unconstitutional position that those of faith have no place in the public area or in public policy making is absurd, ridiculous, and dangerous.

What would be more insane, out of touch with reality, anarchist, socially destructive, undemocartic, amoral, anomic, then proposing the idea that each individual just do whatever the hell they would like based on the idea that if it feels good do it.

Please enough of the historical revisionism of Ronald Reagan who was a man of faith and fought along side social conservatives and knew too well the cultural war the Left has been waging to destroy americas fundamental institutions.

Please leave the GOP and join your cousins on the Left and drive them nuts with your lunacy.

Tommy Frisco| 2.28.12 @ 2:15PM

Thanks, Simon. Excellent comments!

Yes, the Left keeps saying we can't legislate morality, yet that's exactly what they've been doing....and, they use unelected judges to do their dirty work for them.

Mike 3/505| 2.28.12 @ 2:33PM

Simon,

Thanks....You said it just right.

Regards,

Mike

Floyd Looney | 2.28.12 @ 5:16PM

Libertarians have their own party. All they care about is open borders, drugs,and sex for all

skip| 2.28.12 @ 8:11PM

reason and experience:
intellectually honest wisdom of reality derived with logical, rational, analytical justification, based on the awareness of accumulated knowledge understood through observation of life and the world, used to make persuasive judgments with good cause

emotional prattle:
intellectually dishonest meaningless nonsense lacking reality derived with illogical, irrational, unanalytical explanation, based on the awareness of arbitrary feelings understood through observation of life and the world, used to make misjudgments with poor effect

The political debate between conservatives and liberals is not between more or less equal sides with honest differences in opinion disagreeing over details, because liberals unintelligently and dishonestly emotionally prattle devoid of reason and experience, whether socially, politically, economically, religiously, or scientifically.

Fiscal burst on the scene (2.11.12 @ 5:53AM) with copious liberal prattle.

Nick was first to respond (2.11.12 @ 1:34pm):

"There's already a party for pansies.
It's called the 'democrat party'."

Undaunted, Fiscal continued with copious liberal prattle, until, in hindsight rather inevitably, the ultimate dismissive classic response by Al Adab (2.24.12 @ 4:05PM):

""Do not waste time bantering with morons or barbarians." Marcus Aurelius"

Undaunted, Fiscal continued with copious liberal prattle.

The feeling has been persistent that the liberal prattle of Fiscal was not just any typical liberal prattle but familiar liberal prattle. The link below provides a possible explanation:

huffingtonpost.com/robert-reich/as-santorum-and-romney-ba_b_1304978.html

www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-.....04978.html

Mere coincidence?

Severn| 2.29.12 @ 10:41AM

>"What could be more moral than letting each individual make their own decisions not forced by government fiat?"

People "make their own decisions not forced by government fiat" in many parts of the world. These are not the parts of the world which anybody wants to live in, by and large.

mjs_pa| 2.28.12 @ 7:26AM

Mark Levin in this long expose explains how wRONg paul's libertarianism is nothing more than a shill for anarchy--Exactly what Santorum understands and fears about paul's cult movement.

It also explains why wRONg paul and his paultards are constantly attacking social conservatives and now allying with mitt romney.

Rather than focusing on coming together to defeat obama, the ronulans back up plan is to vote for BHO.

Mark Levin’s extensive exposition of Ron Paul and Mitt Romney alliance

http://www.therightscoop.com/m.....-alliance/

Sean| 2.28.12 @ 8:46AM

Mark Levin is an idiot. Ron Paul has a libertarian streak in that he want to follow the US Constitution. Following the Constitution doesn't allow anarchy.

Con Chef (NB) | 2.28.12 @ 9:19AM

Just Say NO to "Paul Trek II: The Wrath of Ron"

9thID| 2.28.12 @ 10:17AM

Tehran Ron's Voluntaryism is Anti-Constitutional...

DIck Nome| 2.28.12 @ 11:37AM

True Paulbots hate Mark Levin as he can run rings around Rube Paul when it come to the Constitution. Mark Levin is a Constitutional scholar in the true sense. Suck wind Paulbots.

Doctor Right| 2.28.12 @ 6:34PM

Mark Levin could run intellectual circles around Ron "Surrender Monkey" Paul.

Paul is a lightweight and a poseur masquerading as a Constitutionalist, when he's actually a neo-Confederate.

aware| 2.29.12 @ 6:10AM

As opposed to you neocons who are doing such an outstanding job of....no wait. The neocons have actually been partners in destroying what was a great Republic.

I don't recall any "L" designation attached to any of the mass of legislation passed for the last 100 years that is frog marching us down the road to tyranny. Just "D" and "R".

But by all means keep doing the same thing and expect different results. It's worked out so well so far.

Vern Crisler| 2.28.12 @ 9:28AM

I agree. Antle quotes Ronald Reagan but he doesn't appear to understand that libertarian has morphed in the last few years. It has now become almost wholly identified with Murray-Rothbard and Ron Paul's brand of libertarianism. Mises and Hayek need not apply.

Antle is wrong that conservatives oppose the decision in Lawrence because they favor an "expansive" view of state power. In fact, anti-sodomy laws had always been on the books; Jefferson even wanted sodomites castrated.

The decision was a restriction on freedom. Lawrence is an example of judicial usurpation of the rights of the states to govern themselves. The decision was an increase in statist power, not a diminution of it.

Right now conservatives are faced with the choice of empty-suit Republicanism on the one hand, and Paulista anarchism on the other. Perhaps the idea of a third party -- a conservative party -- is not such a bad idea.

aware| 2.28.12 @ 4:32PM

Ideological blinders are severely limiting your understanding. If you think Rothbard is some kind of kook you don't know what you are talking about. A stronger, more intelligent advocate for liberty has not existed in modern times. Something sorely lacking not only in the criminal class of politicians that run your whole freaking life, but in what passes for conservatism today.

Remember liberty? If more conservatives read Rothbard it might become important again.

Vern Crisler | 2.28.12 @ 10:30PM

You should read my post "Lies of Murray Rothbard."

http://vernerable.wordpress.co.....-rothbard/

I have nothing bad to say about Rothbard's ECONOMIC teachings, however.

aware| 2.29.12 @ 5:59AM

I can see it's even worse than I thought. You absolutely don't know what you are talking about.

"loyalty to Austria??" Are you that obtuse? The Austrian economic school is reference to Mises and Hayek, who were Austrians by birth, not any allegiance to Austria. What a glaring piece of idiocy!

How many Rothbard books have you read? Not what others told you about but actually read. Zero, right?

You are an excellent example of the intellectual shallowness that has come to dominate what passes for conservatism today.

Timothy L. Pennell| 2.28.12 @ 9:53AM

Congratulations. You are the ONLY one, who has written the word: OBAMA. Yet, you did it in an attack on a Republican. Albeit, an IDIOT one.

If I'm a Candidate? I only see The Muslim. I only talk about HAMAS' Deliveror. If I'm asked about The Time? I'm talking about his YEARS growing up in the Muslim Schools and Mosques, of Indonesia. I'm talking about Frank Marshall Davis, Jeremiah Wright, and Bill Ayers. I'm talking about Oil, and Gas, Canadian Pipelines, and Apologies. Unilateral Nuclear Disarmement, NASA, Credit rating Downgrades, and the CRATERING of our Economy.

Can we PLEASE cut the sh*t with all of this "My Dad's better than your Dad", garbage?

Time to GROW UP!

Besides. Everybody knows, that MY DAD is the best.

Doctor Right| 2.28.12 @ 5:08PM

Was your Dad a blow-hard, too?

aware| 2.29.12 @ 6:01AM

At last, something we can agree on.

Clint| 2.28.12 @ 7:36AM

More Israel Firster Smear Bund Buffoonery.

The Tea Party Rebellion Heads To A Brokered Convention.

Frank Drackman | 2.28.12 @ 8:14AM

Cheer Up Clit,
New "Glee" episodes are only a month away...

9thID| 2.28.12 @ 10:30AM

I read yesterday where Ron Paul's poster child for the new gay military is being put up for a Nobel Peace prize like Yasser Arafat. It was no surprise that Robespierre Ron voted with his libertine cousins during the lame duck to force homosexuality upon our combat troops during a time of two wars. Then he doubled down and joined with the likes of domestic terrorist Bill Ayres, Code Pink, and Mikey Moore to label the gay WikiLeaks traitor Bradley/Briana Manning a "hero and patriot". Baptist In Name Only Robespierre Paul looks to meet the same fate as his namesake...

Con Chef (NB) | 2.28.12 @ 1:49PM

Personally, I see his political career ending like that of Murat. Bleeding out in a bathtub...

Clint| 2.28.12 @ 5:55PM

More Queer Talk From Bibi's Dorkee.

Doctor Right| 2.28.12 @ 6:36PM

..."Bibi's Dorkee"..??

And you call other people queer??

LOL!

Dick Nome| 2.28.12 @ 8:42AM

The Islamist Firster speaks. The old crackpot anarchist Libertarian is his desire.

Con Chef (NB) | 2.28.12 @ 9:19AM

You mean "the old crackpot anarchist Libertarian" who may very well thrown his support behind the equally fake conservative Romeny to get a VP slot for him or his son? THAT guy?

Clint| 2.28.12 @ 5:56PM

The Israel Firster Smear Bund Is Scared Of Dr. ron Paul.

The Tea Party Rebellion Heads To A Brokered Comnvention.

Occam's Tool| 2.28.12 @ 11:57AM

Query: what did any of those comments have to do with Israel, Clint? You got the Hebrew Hammer on the Brain, boy.

Mike Hawk| 2.28.12 @ 12:59PM

He's an anti-Semite.

Clint| 2.28.12 @ 6:05PM

You're A Lie, Hawk.

Your Dog Eared, Bottom Of The Barrel Anti-Semite Card Is A Lie And You're A Serial Liar, Hawk.

The Tea Party Rebellion Heads To A Brokered Convention.

RCV| 2.28.12 @ 4:51PM

Clint is the real "Israel-firster". Israel is the first thing that comes to his mind everytime he disagrees with someone.

Clint| 2.28.12 @ 6:08PM

That's A Lie, Obama LawBoy Israel Firster Smear Bund, Troll, RCV.

A Refrigerator Can Beat Your Shuck & Jive Trash Talkin' Alinskyite Socialist, Obooboo.

The Tea Party Rebellion Heads To A Brokered Convention.

Clint| 2.28.12 @ 6:03PM

What Does Any American Election Have To Do With YourIScrewball Maniac Israel Firtster Smear Bund Agenda, Tool Job ?

You Got Your Mancrush, Bibi On The Brain, Sugar Pockets.

Drek| 2.28.12 @ 7:46AM

Look at the headline today in the New York Post:

"SANTORUM ATTACKS JFK!"

Now, rightly or wrongly, JFK is the most popular of former Presidents.

So how's that likely to work out for us?

Every single time that Santorum begins a thread against Obama that begins to tell against obama, ------ the media will be able to drag one of his more unusual observations from back in the day out before the public, and demand that he explain himself, -- thus shielding obama and putting Santorum back on the defensive.

The tactical problems inherent in a Santorum campaign are immense, ---------- and obvious to just about all of us not emotionally wrapped up in Santorum's family.

Mike Hawk| 2.28.12 @ 8:46AM

JFK the most popular?? WHere do you get that BS idea?? He was POTUS 3 years and nothing more. Most living voters don't remember him. I do and could never figure out where this worship came from except that the Statist media still loves the Kennedys.

canuckistani| 2.28.12 @ 10:18AM

It doesn't cover the fact that Ricky is going to places no presidential candidate can go and then return from unscathed.

JFK was slammed mightily by the old Bob Jones and Billy Sunday smear apparatus and his Church and State speech was motivated by these swift-boating tactics in the Nixon campaign.

The fact that we have amnesia every four years is not new, but for Ricky to slam JFK is disingenuous, obviously self-loathing, and clearly short-sighted delusion.

The JFK speech quelled the chattering class enough to squeak to victory just as BHO's Wright speech quelled the race-baiters enough to clinch the nom from Hillary.

The question is when will Ricky give the "I'm not a sociopath" speech?

Mike Hawk| 2.28.12 @ 11:11AM

JFK got into office due to voter fraud in Chicago. Sound familiar??? It ought to.

Al Adab| 2.28.12 @ 11:52AM

And Nixon, unlike Gore, put the national interest ahead of his own and refused to demand recounts or investigations. Let that stand to his credit.

Occam's Tool| 2.28.12 @ 11:58AM

Many, many things stand to Nixon's credit. A flawed, but great man.

canuckistani| 2.28.12 @ 12:21PM

Like what?
Using redneck hate to win? Price controls? The EPA? HMOs? Carpet bombing Cambodia? Bribing the south vietnamese? Watergate?
Be specific.

Moe Blotz| 2.28.12 @ 12:43PM

President Nixon also resigned from office in order to avoid putting the country through the anguish of impeaching our President. At least he put the country ahead of his own self interest.

Doctor Right| 2.28.12 @ 6:38PM

It's funny how you call other people "rednecks", but whine about "hate".

canuckistani| 2.28.12 @ 12:28PM

And Junior in Florida. So what's your point?
Ricky was opening a can of worms he had zero business opening.
If you have to explain, yer losin' in politics.

He has to explain precisely how religion has a role to play in the public square beyond simple moral compass rhetoric. Policy? extra-constitutional reach?

He's started it, now he can frame it - if possible.

Doctor Right| 2.28.12 @ 6:21PM

What's so sacrosanct about JFK???

Drek| 2.28.12 @ 1:52PM

Yea, that's a weird stat, but true.

Drek| 2.28.12 @ 7:48AM

Meanwhile, take a look at Gingrich's dissection of Obama's energy speech.

Just take a look at that single speech, a speech that Santorum could never hope to emulate, --------- and ask yourself who would be better able to force narrative upon obama.

A Santorum campaign automatically yields narrative dominance to obama's White House.

canuckistani| 2.28.12 @ 10:19AM

Gingrich sitting on a park bench with Pelosi.

Nuff said about dissecting other's policies.

Deeds trump rhetoric every time.

Drek| 2.28.12 @ 1:54PM

"[D]eeds?"

Like constructing the first Republican majority in 40 years?

What other Republican could have even imagined what that man accomplished?

He sat on the bench with Pelosi, two Speakers.

What of GHWB appearing with Clinton?

What legislative agenda followed from Gingrich taking a seat with Pelosi?

Come on people, you can do better than that!

canuckistani| 2.28.12 @ 5:59PM

If it were "two speakers" being all statesmenlike, why is he running from it like a house on fire? I thought his record was impervious to assault from the right?

Marco2| 2.28.12 @ 8:18AM

I find myself in agreement here with people I usually disagree with. I (and many Republicans I know) will note vote for Santorum in any circumstance. I believe he'd be lucky to hit 40% in the general election, and that much only because of habitual voting behavior. Add a high-powered fiscal conservative/libertarian third party option, 30%, or even less.The Republican Party will likely implode, and good riddance. If they can't come up with somebody other than this clown, who needs them?

canuckistani| 2.28.12 @ 10:42AM

The ideas party imploded just around the time Bob Dole was chosen as the nom.

The Contract on America was only two years old and Newtie had found a way to not take yes for an answer and overreached when the long game was required.

Mike C| 2.28.12 @ 11:29AM

If you refuse to vote for Santorum then you must believe that Obama would be fiscally more conservative. That is illogical.
If you refuse to vote for Santorum because you believe he will somehow try to "legislate" his religion then you think that in the absence of evidence. That too is illogical.
If you refuse to vote for Santorum just because you don't like the guy, that's your right, but its an emotional decision and its people that vote/not vote based on emotions that gave us Obama.
I will agree though that the GOP, and conservatism, is better of w/o voters like you. See ya.

Moe Blotz| 2.28.12 @ 12:50PM

The religion fear is an old one, my grandparent's generation feared the Pope would influence JFK too greatly if he became President. My grandmother I remember saying that she did not want to see the Pope in the White House. Those who do not know history, et cetera.

canuckistani| 2.28.12 @ 6:02PM

So was JFK's speech apropos and Ricky's being a self-loathing creep?

Your grandma was probably a real Umerican, so her bigotry was probably just idle cultural ineptitude.

Le Cracquere| 2.28.12 @ 8:31AM

And yet ... are the libertarians and social conservatives really in an "alliance" if the latter is expected to be nothing but a silent partner? I've got some problems with Santorum, but you Republican who absolutely REFUSE to vote for him ... are you really interested in anything the social conservatives might wish to bring to the table? It's not a rhetorical question.

rightasrain| 2.28.12 @ 9:20AM

I think abortion is the great libertarian/social conservative unifier. Libertarians believe in the right to be left alone but not the right to commit murder.

Vern Crisler| 2.28.12 @ 9:33AM

The fact is libertarians hate conservatives more than they hate liberals. By conservatives I mean Sarah, Rush, Buckley, Reagan, Lincoln, Madison, Hamilton, Washington, US Troops, and biblical Joseph at last count.

Old Soldier| 2.28.12 @ 10:06AM

Here is what I am willing to do for social conservatives - get the federal government and their liberal-progressive agendas out of your lives.

Not to replace them with a socially conservative government agenda - but rather with freedom.

How's that deal?

Le Cracquere| 2.28.12 @ 10:52AM

Not positive that it's necessarily a bargain, as phrased. For one thing, untrammelled volitionism and freedom are arguably two different goods--the former doesn't always shake out as the latter.

For another thing, some social conservatives feel that they are members of a civilization, not just a business compact. They have a vision of the sort of civilization this is by nature, and that they'd like to live in--its broad ethos and mores included. They don't necessarily think the law can or should impose this vision with a heavy hand, but forbidding the law from doing anything to promote it seems to them more fanatical than the "theocracy" it purports to guard against. I'm hard pressed to call this stance "statist" in the same way one would the modern Left.

And I sense that exiling this attitude from the public arena will leave us a culture far too "thin" to stir much popular passion about any sorts of freedoms ... including the sorts that warm a Libertarian's heart.

Old Soldier| 2.28.12 @ 11:09AM

I'm neither an atheist nor some kind of volitionist. I work with my church, my kids' schools, Boy Scouts, etc... to improve the society we live in. All those are far better ways to improve our society than assigning it to a bureaucrat or politician.

Le Cracquere| 2.28.12 @ 12:37PM

I'm very glad to hear it--kudos! And you're absolutely right that your contributions have it all over the average government time-server.

Still, it kind of seems like a false choice. Sure, a truly healthy civil society of the kind Tocqueville described shouldn't be imposed by government; but it doesn't seem so healthy that the former's principles and spirit be totally absent from the latter, or that there be no mutual reinforcement.

Bill| 2.28.12 @ 8:49AM

Guess Who?
voted for
1. Raising the debt ceiling 5 times
2. Planned Parenthood
3. Medicare Part D
4. NCLB
5. Bridge to nowhere
voted against
1. "Right-to-Work" law
Ans: Ricky "Pro-Union RINO" Santorum

Con Chef (NB) | 2.28.12 @ 9:17AM

You & Clint must've gone to a bigot's robo-posting seminar.

Bill| 2.28.12 @ 11:06AM

They are facts!

Con Chef (NB) | 2.28.12 @ 11:30AM

And while that's true, you need some new material, Nathan Bedford Forrest Wannabe.

Bill| 2.28.12 @ 12:34PM

They are good enough to bring down two RINO: Santorum and Romney, while Gingrich surges in the Super Tuesday.

Con Chef (NB) | 2.28.12 @ 1:50PM

Bet you a bottle of Corky's BBQ sauce from Memphis you're wrong.

RCV| 2.28.12 @ 4:49PM

bill has been wrong in every prediction he's made to date! He confidently predicted that Perry would sweep everything, that Gingrich would win Florida, etc. You're taking candy from a baby, Con Chef!

Bill| 2.28.12 @ 6:06PM

You never know!

Clint| 2.28.12 @ 6:11PM

You're A 4-F Neo-Chickenhawk Israel Firster Smear Bund Liar, Con Job Frankel.

You're The Big Yellow Bus Callin' A Lemon Pie Yellow.

Call Your Mancrush, Bibi In The Morning.

Nick| 2.28.12 @ 7:05PM

"That nigger lover President Clinton had the pen and vetoed so many good bills passed by the Gingrich-led Congress."
- Written by Bill, in the Time for Newt to Do the Honorable Thing thread:

http://spectator.org/archives/.....ent_749403

You're a moron and a racist, Bill.
GO AWAY!

Bill| 2.28.12 @ 8:29PM

Nick is a racist.

Nick| 2.28.12 @ 11:19PM

Wrong, jackass.
I don't care what race a person happens to be. I love all people.

You, on the other hand, are a racist and a liar.
Now, GO AWAY!

PolishKnight| 2.28.12 @ 8:55AM

Both libertarians and social conservatives "don't get it". Libertarians want open borders without caring about the political consequences when the illegal aliens vote Democrat and corporations engage in crony capitalism and partnership with leftists on wall street. The social conservatives fight Stalingrad issues that have little meaning (they aren't going to stop abortion), embrace concepts of traditionalism that are self-destructing (hyper chivalry), while letting the two parent family go to hell and also lose their demographic base slowly but surely.

Fiscal| 2.28.12 @ 9:05AM

Libertarians want the free flow of trade, NOT open borders. Even Paul said that we should get out of Afghanistan and put that money into border security. It would be nice if you understood modern libertarianism. What you do is to look at the type of anarchism propounded by the extreme libertarians just as Dems talk about Republicans all being religious extremists.

Old Soldier| 2.28.12 @ 10:16AM

Like Republicans, Libertarians do not have an unified opinion on all issues. Immigration / borders are an area where opinions diverge.

I think there is agreement that legal immigration can't be opened up until the welfare state is under control - so we aren't inviting in more freeloaders.

Von Mises Jr.| 2.28.12 @ 8:59AM

This article is nonsense. Hayek wrote in "Constitution of Liberty" a final essay on "Why I am not a Conservative." He concluded that he wished to be called an "Old Whig."
This is becuase socialist over the last few centuries have bastardized the meaning of words. "Classic Liberal" is the opposite in Mises adn Hayek's writings to today's liberal. Conservative originally meant to conserve that implied non-acceptance to change. This is what Hayek objected to be referred to: someone who did not accept minor, slow and positive change.
Today's so-called "progressives" are really revolutioanries seeking total transformation.

Words mean things, until socialist change them to mean the opposite. Fiscal conservatives in today's venacular that believe in the Enumerated Powers Doctrine are not far from Locke's views that are traditional "libertarianism." Santorum would stray gtom Locke if he used government to dictate social issues. But he says he will not?

Dr. X| 2.28.12 @ 9:04AM

I think that very few people today truly understand the incompatibility of libertarianism and traditional religious conservatism in the post-welfare state era.

Prior to the welfare state, it could be argued that America was truly a "libertarian" country in which Jefferson's yeoman could do just about anything he wanted. However, the consequences of his actions were his alone to bear. To put it another way, if he chose to cross the Sierras in a blizzard with the Donner Party, whatever happened was no concern of the government. Therefore, the average American of that era was constrained not by the government, but by religious and social morality and the recognition that he had better make the proper choices or he was screwed. The absence of a safety net was a crucial factor in regulating his behavior.

What we call "libertarianism" today is really backed by the government safety net. Libertarians may argue, for instance, that if one wants to have anal sodomy or take drugs it is none of the government's business, but in reality the American who gets AIDS or becomes addicted will ultimately be cared for by the government safety net.

Therefore libertarianism is untenable. Frankly, Santorum is right that we need a statist, religion-inspired conservatism. Unfortunately that is very unlikely to succeed. Instead what we have is a post-1960s sexual and anti-religious libertarian ethic enforced by the government -- the latest example being the governments attempt to force private institutions to provide "free" birth control. But this is not true libertarianism because the individual is not actually responsible for the consequences of his actions.

Fiscal| 2.28.12 @ 9:16AM

Hmmm... What we call modern social conservatism is even more backed by the government safety net. If you really want to make the fiscal argument of AIDS, you must also realize that the cost of unwanted pregnancies would be far greater if abortions were stopped.

Then, of course, the assumption that morality is actually improved by social conservatives is questionable. I remain unconvinced that any political ideology is more "moral" than any other. I've known many atheists I consider to be extremely moral and many "religious" people who take drugs, cheat on their wives, are closet homosexuals, or evangelists who cheat people out of their money.

Old Soldier| 2.28.12 @ 10:24AM

Dr. X,

I agree with you post until the last paragraph. The solution isn't imposed morality, it is to take away the stupid safety net. Then I won't have to care or pay for other folks' reckless lifestyles.

I choose freedom and adulthood.

Mike 3/505| 2.28.12 @ 2:38PM

Old Soldier,

That's the right answer...for that question and many others...get rid of the hammock (safety net) and most government and social problems go away of their own accord.

Regards,

Mike
(Another Old Soldier)

Big Tony| 2.28.12 @ 9:22AM

What some people consider warring factions of anti-drug warriors and sexual counterrevolutionaries others call the conservative movement..?????????????????? HUH????

Did you mean anti-drug war warriors?

The anti-drug warriors and sexual counterrevolutionaries are the same stick their uptight noses in your business goofballs and they want to use the government to do it. Obama and Axelrod will chew Santorum's holier than thou butt up and spit him out. And the libertarian wing will either sit the election out or vote for a third party. Either way Obama wins a second term.

Floyd Looney | 2.28.12 @ 9:52AM

Libertarians are always attacking social conservatives, but if someone fires back it "strains" the alliance.

Strange logic.

canuckistani| 2.28.12 @ 12:41PM

It only strains logic if you make the leap that social conservatives have a place in modern society where adults have chosen to be free.
The libertarians have the enviable position of being correct on pretty much every issue - especially with history on their side. But they lose the argument when attempting to put their views into practice in the public domain.

Pulling back our projected power, ending lazy money printing, slashing social progams and ending lopsided trade deals will take generations to accomplish. The American voter simply will not have the fortitude to wait. This is where reality trumps idealism.

Doctor Right| 2.28.12 @ 6:24PM

Really?

What part of social conservatism runs counter to Liberty, genius?

Let's hear it. C'mon. Show us your intellect.

...silence...

Yeah. Just what I thought. Another know-nothing.

Floyd Looney | 2.28.12 @ 9:27PM

lol.

every issue?

Which libertarians? The ones who want to legalize kiddie porn? The ones who think incest, cannibalism and organ trafficking are victimless crimes? The ones who want open borders-unlimited immigration? The ones who think we need to do away with the age of consent?

martin j smith| 2.28.12 @ 9:53AM

The Tea Marty Movement ( not a political Party but a sentiment ) came about largely because of Obama's economic Policies which are Socialist or Communist in nature. The Tea Party Sentiment also opposes government expansion and regulation. These are elemental aspects of Conservatism and Romney does not fit that profile. Santorum does seem to.

Timothy L. Pennell| 2.28.12 @ 9:57AM

Look at all these comments. It's like a Pissing Contest, or a Punch in the arm Contest, or one of those European (Girly) Face Slap Contests.

Can we PLEASE cut the sh*t with all of this "My Dad's better than your Dad", garbage?

Time to GROW UP!

Besides. Everybody knows, that MY DAD is the best.

emilio lizardo, phD| 2.28.12 @ 10:15AM

Ridiculous, isnt it? It's as if these morons think the election is over with the nomination of the GOP candidate and there wont be a fight to unseat BHO and stave off the destruction of this country as we know it.

Timothy L. Pennell| 2.28.12 @ 10:22AM

Exactly.

canuckistani| 2.28.12 @ 10:46AM

If destruction of this country as we know includes a negative inflection of the income disparity curve and a rapid rise in the number of white collar perp walks on the evening news, I'm all for it.

The average American has taken it in the ear by conservative toadies of the rich that have zero interest in a strong America for all.

Doctor Right| 2.28.12 @ 6:27PM

Your stupidity, as well as your innate ability to be wrong on just about everything, is highly amusing.

Income disparity is the purest sign of a healthy, vibrant economy. The fact that you don't understand it, as well as the fact that you come from a 3rd-world, socialist cesspool, is not really surprising.

But it does beg a question: WHY are you here?

If you like "income equality", then why did you leave the horrible place that birthed you and your ancestors???

Moron.

Occam's Tool| 2.28.12 @ 12:01PM

Well, Emilio, as you like to say, "History is Made in the Dark."\

We're in the deep doo, aren't we, guys.

Mac Jehoff| 2.28.12 @ 12:56PM

All right Dr. Lazerta, you and Timmy rode in in your high horses and looked down your noses at the peons. Now go back to your office, pile it higher and deeper

Occam's Tool| 2.28.12 @ 11:59AM

TLP: Yes, he was. Certainly better than my Dad. You are so right.

wodiej| 2.28.12 @ 10:11AM

I don't know where this article got that Santorum has a better conservative rating than Gingrich but Gingrich's is 90.

Despite any flaws, Gingrich has alot more successful conservative accomplishments than Santorum has and he doesn't preach nor is he arrogant. I'm sticking w Newt. He wasn't part of the George Bush Jr. administration and that's a double plus.

canuckistani| 2.28.12 @ 10:51AM

When newtie drops a 'fundamentally' in his stump speech - he's preaching, you just don't know it. When he drops a 'frankly' or an 'historic' in his speech - he's being arrogant, and you just don't realize it.

Newtie had the chance to be a transformative leader. Within two years hew blew it, got rolled by slick Willie and was utinied by the very conservative class he took the credit for ushering in.
He has nothing in his record but bomb throwing that was successful one time. Frankly, I believe his fundamental flaw is his unwillingness to match historic failures with reasoned self-analysis.

Mike 3/505| 2.28.12 @ 2:41PM

"he's being arrogant, and you just don't realize it."

Generally speaking, using the above verbiage regarding Newt, indicates an intellect way less than his. Lesser intellects always use the "arrogant" term towards their betters.

canuckistani| 2.28.12 @ 6:04PM

See reference above.
I seldom call anyone arrogant. Their words usually reveal them to be nervous nellies cloaked in bluster.

Spymaster G.| 2.28.12 @ 6:28PM

Is the Slurpee machine busted, Apu..?

martin j smith| 2.28.12 @ 11:20AM

talk is cheap and history well that is history. The real question is a guess based what candidates are saying now and given the nature of the uncertainty of events and the political and economic situation there is no certainty that any of our candidates will do. However we do know Obama's record. And we do hear what each of our candidates say. I would prefer Santorum or Newt over the two others. Romney and Paul both close to Obama one in regards economic and related rhetoric of class warfare the other in foreign policy and national insecurity.You can figure out who I mean. I am tired of the two Obamas on "our side".

Con Chef (NB) | 2.28.12 @ 11:31AM

Well stated!

Fiscal| 2.28.12 @ 11:45AM

The truth is that Obama's record is actually pretty good and has been mightily skewed by Fox News. Think about it, jobs lost under Bush and jobs gained under Obama. The economy is improving. He captured Osama bin Laden and increased the troops in Afghanistan. Once he saw the data, he did not close Guantanamo and supported the Patriot Act. The fact that he said that the economy would never get over 8% unemployment while he was campaigning only means something for fools -- when did anyone believe weathermen and economic forecasts?

The only winning argument is one of defining limited government as a theory and then showing a plan of how to get there. The general public will not believe the Fox News misstatements once the Obama campaign starts advertising. Even now, as independents (who will decide this election) hear Romney and Santorum, they are pulling their support away from Republicans at an alarming rate.

Pete| 2.28.12 @ 4:39PM

Obama has lost millions of jobs, looking at the number employed. He has been hostile to business, unless of course it was the business of his cronies. Then we have Fast and Furious. He gave guns to the drug and people smugglers of Mexico leading to many deaths. His ObamaCare is proving far more costly than advertised and puts the government in the middle of our healthcare. You completely ignore the 5 Trillion he has accumulated in debt. He still supports the junk science known as AGW.
Then he has proven himself completely unable to work with Republicans. Worse yet he has bypassed congress and the constitution over and over again.
Obama now has a record and he will finally get vetted over his Black Liberation, Bill Ayers ties.
Obama will only win if he can gin up war with Iran.

canuckistani| 2.28.12 @ 6:18PM

You are right - if he governed in the economic climate of the 90's.

The housing collapse has sapped capital from the consumer market to epic proportions.

I had three bullet-proof business plans turned down in 2009-10: no capital except for vampires/loan sharks looking for 15% plus.
It is better now, but many friends and colleagues went under due to money simply drying up.

This collapse was authored by bad policy, greedy homeowners and the usual suspects on wall street speculating their way to another bubble.
There is nothing any president can do but maintain a basic safety net and look for economic policies that rewards domestic risk-taking and punishes speculative bogeymen.

Policy has to reflect a climate that seeks to avoid bubbles. Dodd-Frank starts that process. Reimposing Glass-Steagal would be my next choice, and imbedding the volcker rule would be up there too.
The largest and most complex economy in the world needs better stewardship than permitting the inmates to rule. We as citizens were raised to believe the rule of law is what separates us from commies, simians and barbarians.
Winfall profits should be taxed to death, and boards of directors examined for their permitting inane compensation packages for ceo's. This will begin the process of bringing trust back into the equation.

Willard's dad believed all of this. Willard does not, and Ricky simply has no interest in these corporeal debates.

Casey Abell| 2.28.12 @ 11:35AM

Santorum has been pretty quiet about social issues lately. Great idea. He's got the social cons locked up and doesn't have to give them any more red meat.

The radio silence on birth control and other way-out stuff is mostly intended for indies in the general election. But it has the side benefit of cutting the irritation factor for libertarians in the GOP primaries.

canuckistani| 2.28.12 @ 6:19PM

He brought up JFK on Sunday. So I guess 24 hours is "lately".

Skip| 2.28.12 @ 11:50AM

Why on earth do we keep dragging out the "Reagan on libertarianism" and "Goldwater was a libertarian" canards?

Reagan made the statement in 1975. After 8 years in office, can we point to any policy or acheivement as "libertarian" in nature? Go through Goldwater's "Conscience of a Conservative" and underline how many times he mentions "moral" or "morals".

Which is besides the point. As another posted stated, the "libertarianism" of today belongs solely to the Rockwell/Rothbard/DiLorenzo nutjob wing, and Robespierre Ron (thanks, 9thID, I'm stealing that one) just swims in their wake. They hated Reagan, Goldwater (intervention against Communism, anyone), and Lincoln to boot.

Libertari ite domum

Fiscal| 2.28.12 @ 12:29PM

Here's the rub.... While the minute Libertarian Party of today is primarily extreme anarchists, the Republican Party, with it's support of big government solutions for same sex marriage and abortions is extremely statist. The Republican party today is defined by social conservatives -- who were a much smaller part of the party during Reagan. You can make the same argument about social conservatives you did about libertarians -- they are right wing nut jobs.

As Cato has found out, most people in this country are fiscally conservative and socially moderate. The national candidate closest to that ideal will get the votes of independents who now decide elections. Most of these people can be called "libertarian leaning". We are in an era that defines people by the extremes whether they are social conservatives, libertarians, or liberals but most people are moderate combinations of all three.

There is nothing in the meme of social conservatism that calls for less government -- they just want less government for the things they don't like and more government for the things they do like. Furthermore, Tea Party support for Social Security and Medicare underline that idea.

You can't have a goal of less government without some sort of libertarian underpinning. That is just a fact....

Pete| 2.28.12 @ 4:43PM

What a poor defense of the Marxist in office today? First you define the Libertarian Party as extreme anarchists, then conservatives as statists. You must go back to Wonderland where up is down and left is right.

Severn| 2.29.12 @ 2:15PM

>"As Cato has found out, most people in this country are fiscally conservative and socially moderate."

Most people in this country are not fiscally conservative. Most people in this country are very happy for the governmnent to do things which put money in their pockets, and unhappy if it does things which remove money from their pockets. That is not "fiscal conservatism".

And "socialy moderate" is lefty-speak for 'we like the entire left-wing social package". That social package is very, very expenisve, though for some reason the "libertarians" never notice it.

Severn| 2.29.12 @ 3:07PM

>"There is nothing in the meme of social conservatism that calls for less government "

One of the enduring mysteries of politics is the monomanial obsession which libertarians have for social conservatives.

The GOP is made up of a lot of factions. Many of these are both a good deal more influential and a good deal more devoted to big government than are the social conservatives - for instance, the big business/Chamber of Commerce wing of the GOP. But for some reason the entire political universe (as seen by libertarians) is composed of "social conservatives" on the one hand and libertarians on the other.

You people have a cartoonish view of the poltical landscape.

WM| 2.29.12 @ 7:33PM

"Furthermore, Tea Party support for Social Security and Medicare underline that idea."

What support, moron? They just called for the abolition of the entitlement programs in their new book out February 14. If that's "support for Social Security and Medicare," sign me up as a dedicated fanatical zealot.

Simon Templar| 2.28.12 @ 1:16PM

Alliance, what alliance? It really is time to be honest about this so-called alliance. There is no alliance. Liberalatarians despise conservativism and have very little in common with it particularly the basic tenets, its philosophical underpinnings, and its world view.

It may have at one time but modern L's are essentially the bi-product of 60 years of radical liberal education and influence via the takeover of our education sytem by progressives.

It is an amalgamation of contradictory, twisted, and extremely confused positions that are cherry picked across the political spectrum from left to Right. Much of it is arrogant half baked ideas as complete, absolute drug legalization without any realistic perception of the unintended consequences of such policy. Appeasement, anti-war, and isolationism without reality and the unintended consequences of a weak military and foreign policy is another example. The list goes on and on.

Even the style of rhetoric is disgustingly reminiscent of liberals with the labeling and name calling of warmonger, ne0-con, hawk, etc. and the shared perspectives with the Left on jews, blame america first, anti-christian hatred and suspicion, drug legalization, abortion, military spending and preparedness, identification with America's enemies, and tendency towards historical revisionism.

Other than wanting to cut taxes, just what have we in common with today's Liberaltarians?

Given Fiscals suggestion above to raise taxes and cut spending, I am not sure they really are on board with cutting taxes. You never hear Paul talk about massive tax reduction to stimulate economic growth or any plan on growing the economy. Geting rid of the Fed and cutting spending, yes, you do hear but no real specifics.
Have any doubts about what I am saying then remember the emotional response and overwhelming support Paul has recieved from many radical left wingers in the media.

What does Ron Paul seem to fixate on in these debates and emphasize the most? Is it a plan to fix the economy, stimulate growth, fix health care, or open up new energy markets and drilling?

No, it is the Iraq war, the poor Islamist, Israel, and our bad foreign policy whereby we are such meanies and empire builders. It is the war on drugs and how life would be so much simpler if we just provided free narcotics complements of the US government and the tax payer. Look who Paul spends most of his time attacking....conservatives! When was the last time you saw a headline on Ron Paul taking it to Obama?

Skip, thank you for pointing out some of the other glaring differences and realities of today's big L liberalatarians.

Fiscal| 2.28.12 @ 1:32PM

I see that you completely missed the point. I stated that what should come first is a definition of what government should be doing and then paying for it. Republicans have it wrong here because they talk about funding before function. If you want to go to war in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Iran, you should pay for it.

I'm not a Ron Paul supporter, but the fact that he targets Republicans who are ahead of him in the primary is exactly what he should be doing. There is no benefit to him politically attacking Obama unless he is a frontrunner. Note how Romney attacked Obama more when he was a clear frontrunner.

But you are right about extreme libertarians and extreme social conservatives having little in common. By the way, no Republican has a working plan to fix health care as the only way to lower costs significantly is through government run healthcare. As an example, the reason drug costs are so much less in Canada is that they are government controlled. We are the only major country where they are not so in order for the drug companies to make more profits, they bilk us.

Personally, I support a combination health care initiative where have government run basic care and then insurance for the level of care you want personally. We require doctors and hospitals to take care of those who need it, but then don't pay them to do so. This is really enslavement at its most basic level. Besides, health insurance is the farthest from a free market as you can get because it is one of the most regulated things we have. You can't make something free market driven if it is highly regulated. For example, we tell insurance companies that they cannot drop you if you get sick.

Simon Templar| 2.28.12 @ 2:35PM

Fiscal,

No, I caught your points very well. I have heard it many times before. My comment above is actually not directed to you at all but rather to the article and its proposition of some sort of alliance between conservatives and libertarians.

My response to your comment is above, in the thread, where I directly address you by name.

You have some misconceptions that need to be corrected.

First the reason Canadians pay less for medication is because they pay through the nose for higher taxes and a national health care system.
The other idea that drug companies are ripping of consumers is another liberal falsehood you picked up. Go to your local university library and ask the librarian to show you where the annual accounting reports for the drug companies are located and look them up. Drug companies have gignatic R&D cost, the profit margin in this industry is rather small. The cost of development makes up a great deal of the price particularly before they lose patent and become generically produced.

Health insurance is far from a free market because there is no competition and it is heavily regulated to keep out competition.

There is no free lunch. I am surprised you do not know this as a fically oriented libertarian.

Any kind of government run health care is a disaster. It would be better to pay directly people's insurance policys if they truly can not afford one than have the fed tax, create new bigger government, give them more power and control, and allow more graft and corruption than already exists. It would be cheaper.
I am not advocating this, just trying to make a point.

Insurance companies should not drop people if they get sick, that is the whole point of insurance and the risk the insurance company takes for receiving a premium payment each month indefinitely.

Now, Ron Paul is running for president not a nomination per se. Attacking fellow republicans does not serve his interest in the long run and the idea that the electorate is going to have amnesia after the nomination is ludricous. He like all candidates should convince the electorate that he is a better man for the job than Obama and he is the best choice among all candidates because of his ideas, his record, and his unique qualitities not because his competition has more negatives than he.

Fiscal| 2.28.12 @ 3:20PM

Total taxation in Canada is about 36% of GDP and in the U.S. it is about 30%. The cost of healthcare in this country is about 17% of GDP with the consumer picking up an average of 10% in direct and indirect costs. So the argument about high taxes is moot.

Pharmaceutical companies have a profit margin of 16.4 percent—seventh highest of the 215 industries that Morningstar tracks. So your data is wrong there as well.

You say that insurance companies should not drop people if they get sick, but unless they are regulated, that is exactly what they would do including redlining, genetic testing, etc. I've worked in the insurance industry with actuaries -- have you?

I agree that government run health care is problematic, but I try to use data and analysis to make decisions, not ideology and rhetoric. As I take a look at developed countries and their overall health care costs and results, it is hard not to argue for a single payer system. I even have problems with the way we handle Social Security and Medicare, but I can make an analytical argument there about costs and structure to reduce government intervention. I can't make such an argument analytically with health care especially when we're not going to get rid of Medicare any time soon. Furthermore, it makes us more competitive globally so it will enable more manufacturing jobs in country. So, health care is one of my rare exceptions to a fairly libertarian perspective.

And with Ron Paul, he doesn't have the option of attacking Obama because he knows he can't win. Therefore, his only logical approach is to try and argue the the Republican Party should be more libertarian and fiscally conservative in its approach. None of the other candidates are really fiscally conservative.

Pete| 2.28.12 @ 4:46PM

Data is always skewed and limited and analysis is rarely unbiased. Healthcare is an individual concern and has been skewed by the FDA which is in itself statist.

Simon Templar| 2.28.12 @ 6:32PM

Data and analysis? Yeah.
What you did was go out to the internet and get some so-called data from sites that support your conclusions by hacks that write atricles about business that do not even have business degrees and from questionable sources that have agendas.

You copied and pasted right from USNews.com article about the pharma companies. The "data" on canadian taxes...probably from a travel and relocation agency.

Let's start with the taxes. Canadian taxes are enormous, although rates for those in the middle class are comparable to the US. It is the rich and corporate sector that is taxed much more than in the US. Sales taxes are enormous as compared to the U.S. All taxes combined put Canada at full 10 percent higer tax rate than the U.S.

The Canadian healthcare system is 70% government-funded, the US system is just under 50% government-funded. See the problem with statitics and facts is sometimes people like to show only partial truths and partial pictures.

Now, the drug companies. Partial truth. Yes, the drug companies have been making profits and charging greater prices over the last 10 years. Net profits are not as high as you think they are and their business model is undergoing tremendous stress due to a number of factors including over regulation. For most of the history of drug companies up until 10 years ago, profit margins have been realtivley modest. So, why the change and bump in prices? Government regulation and the FDA have made it so much harder and more cost prohibitive in developing new drugs, the population is aging quickly and demand is rising sharply, patents are expiring at tremendous rates and more generics are being sold, marketing and admin cost are going through the roof, and their price to earning ratios are falling fast. They are in a fight for survival mode given government interference and the other factors I have mentioned and are attempting to acquire sufficient future asssets to remain viable.

See, it is always easier for people like you to just fall on the greedy argument and ignore the big picture.

Yes, I worked in the insurance industry for ten years and know full well its has been in collusion with the federal and state governments, has PACS, and has attempted to encourage regulations that limit upstarts and competition. It has a history of corruption that is well know by those that are educated. It has also invited over regulation due to past corruption.

Health care is costly precisely because government is involved and there are absolutley no incentives to bring it cost in line with market and capital realities. Every socialist country in this world is on the brink of economic collaspe because of this entitlement and others except for a few like Sweden who have an incredibly efficient and honest government system. Politicians just do not know how to keep their hands off of granny's social security and medicare payroll contributions. Insurance companies as they are now structured and practiced will do what they will do to insure viability and maximum profit.

The solution is not over regulating them to produce fairness and better service but rather deregulating and promoting competition that will drive them to lower cost, compete for customers, and create greater efficiencies. Regulation should be a secondary approach and only in case where good business practice and law enter the picture and consumers who have contracts may be unfairly being taken advantage of or exploited.

Yeah, let us take a look at others countries health care systems...they suck. This is why Canadians come here for services other than a bandaid and a root canal.

Your argument about Ron Paul is ridiculous.
if Ron was so concerned about fiscal matters he would certinly be directing most of his attention to Obama, the socialist gigantic big spender, and not solely to conservatives who share the same concerns and pale in comparison to the sins of Obama. Your argument is illogical. He has every option and nothing is stopping him. He also believes he can win so does his paulbots. His objective like all the rest of us should be in defeating Obama.

Russell| 2.28.12 @ 1:59PM

Most libertarians are only social liberals. Or anti-war pot smoking types. They could care less about fiscal conservatism.

Clinton| 2.28.12 @ 3:36PM

Russell spot on.

Clinton| 2.28.12 @ 3:36PM

Russell spot on.

martin j smith| 2.28.12 @ 2:26PM

Fiscal--Your at risk of mental health hospitalization because your delusional traits may well be related to auditory or even visual hallucinations. I hope you can get help right away.

Tommy Frisco| 2.28.12 @ 2:40PM

I am Con-fused about this GOP primary. I had kept reading that all states having a primary, prior to April 1, would be proportional. What happened? For a national election, why don't all states have the same requirements for being on the ballot? Why are registered Democrats allowed to vote in some states, but not in others? Why are Dems allowed to vote in our GOP primary in any state? I thought a Party primary was to for Party members to select their candidates. If that's not the case, why do we even have Party primaries? Why not have General primaries for each state and then let the winner from each Party be on the ballot for the November General Election?

I normally agree with Rush, but I thought he was wrong to promote "Operation Chaos" in the 2008 Democrat primary, just as I think it's wrong for our candidates to be asking the Dems to vote for them in our GOP primary.

To compound the ridiculous GOP primary rules, we have these ridiculous GOP primary debates moderated by the MSM who asks all the wrong questions and none of the questions that should be asked. How could our primary possibly be more ridiculous? Maybe by having the indpendent\moderate candidate conspire with the Libertarian candidate to confuse the primary results even more?

Geez, I think I'll just stay home UNTIL November. Wake me up when it's time to vote against Obama.

Clinton| 2.28.12 @ 3:35PM

The fact is libertards aren't conservative.

Slacker| 2.28.12 @ 4:50PM

Libertarians and social conservatives share the same problems.

Frankly, neither ideology has public support. Polls and surveys often indicate support but, when it comes down to it, the public chicken’s out and our causes and referendums loose. The public claims to be for smaller government but lose nerve when it comes time to layoff teachers or allow an industry go bankrupt. People don’t like abortion until it is their daughter. And so on and so on….

canuckistani| 2.28.12 @ 6:28PM

All politics is local....and personal.
The GOP has done a disservice by retreating to old dehumanizing tactics of identifying the nebulus "them" as the bogeyman. A true leader will speak the truth that the problem is "us". Rich and not so rich have gorged themselves on cheap money, easy credit and lax laws.
Getting us back onto a more manageable footing with require years and shared sacrifice. Those who profited the most pay the most. Those who cannot pay their bills get basic assistance and then a boot for their butts into markets that need them.
The social stuff should be avoided.

Doctor Right| 2.28.12 @ 6:31PM

Sorry, wrong again.

The "social stuff" matters. And it impacts elections, too...usually in favor of Republicans.

That's why Liberals, Democrats, and fools cry and whine about it.

It works.

Pat| 2.28.12 @ 8:06PM

President Obama’s head cheerleader and chief foot massager, Eugene Robinson of the Washington Post, was awakened by a strange noise the other night - he looked under his bed and there was Rick Santorum staring back at him – frightening poor Eugene into another restless night of lost sleep. Naturally, brave Sir Eugene felt compelled to share his fears with the rest of us and so we are advised that Santorum is “extreme” – or at least he talks that way according to Robinson. Along with Juan Williams and Paul Krugman plus a few other media pundits assigned to massage the First Toes, we are being treated to the mainstream media’s first a left, then a right, then a kick to the crotch approach to evaluating Republican presidential candidates.

The official hysterics, poor Eugene’s crowd, evaluate those character flaws burdening each Republican candidate, voice petty criticisms and make up stories about them which Dan Rather used to call “factual but not true”. This is the emotional left hook to our solar plexus.

The right cross comes when the mainstream media begins to write turgid essays laden with ponderous prose which assures us the Republican candidates all possess a mistaken view of what this nation really needs. Filled with meaningless statistics and citing past “studies” of the various issues, this phase appeals to our individual intellects and to our candidates collective lack of intellect. So, our emotions and our reason receive an equal amount of stroking – the Republicans are collective dim bulbs with deep seated character flaws – or so we’re told. Thanks to the mainstream media, it’s easy to divine which Republican candidate frightens the Democrats the most – and, with luck, we can stop bickering among ourselves long enough to pay attention.

POST American| 2.28.12 @ 10:26PM

-----------------BOTTOMLESS LINE-------------------

"America better watch it
or in a couple of decades
we're going to be a minstrel show
----fo RED China."
-Gore Vidal
1985

NOT a Gore fan ---but, in this
the 11th hour of that CFR-Rockefeller op
--we're grabbing TRUTH wherever
we find it.

-----Putting aside the latest reports
on EUGENIST -er' we meant
'BIO-ethicist' honcho Peter
Singer's zealous push for
the selective extermination of
children up to age 3-----
(---CHECK IT OUT!)

Rick Santorum BACKED the
ANTI-Constitutional, chillingly
North Korean NDAA 1021.

What's more, he's getting away
with it.

---Bush Sr/ the Clintons/ Bush Jr/ the Obamas---
==================================
------------------CFR Rockefellers---------------------

In other words ---'TTT-Rick Sanitarium'.

-----and that sanitarium is a EUGENICS sanitarium
----directed by EUGENIST Peter Singer. . .

-------------------------YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED

Peter Verkooijen| 2.28.12 @ 10:47PM

Conservatives expect libertarians to simply fall in line. This primary season proved once and for all that there is no place in the Republican party for those who want individual liberty, limited government and free enterprise.

The GOP nominee will be a Big Government social con or a Big Government technocrat. Neither will win over libertarians and independents.

Conservatism stands for anti-immigration, anti-free trade and an obsession with abortion and regulating people's sex lives. Conservatives will get an old-fashioned marxist-leninist reelected.

Floyd Looney | 2.28.12 @ 11:38PM

Leftists are regulating peoples sex lives. They are doing it right now. Want a faculty job at Berkeley? They ask you your sexual preference. Free condoms for kids, free contraception, pro-sex sex ed in schools. They have government involved in peoples sex lives right now. Promoting gay sex in schools, allowing sex-based clubs in schools....

The left does it all the time, getting government into peoples sex lives.

Are you complaining about that? Conservatives are the ones who want government OUT of it.

teflon93| 2.29.12 @ 9:08AM

Then why's Your Man Ron aligned with the big government RINO in the race?

Perhaps they agree on race...

teflon93| 2.29.12 @ 7:21AM

Looking forward to the Antle column on how RINO Romney's disdain for conservatives is splitting the party, or how his cynical alliance with Ron Paul is screwing conservatives and causing many to change their party affiliations to Independent.

I'll be waiting a loooooong time. Jennifer Rubin will probably write that article first.

Severn| 2.29.12 @ 10:22AM

>" in neither case do the two social conservatives base their support for tax and spending cuts in abstract libertarian principle."

Abstract libertarian principle tends to be pretty stupid, so I look at this as a GOOD thing.

Severn| 2.29.12 @ 10:51AM

>"Santorum's anti-libertarianism manifests itself in the fairly exapansive view of state police powers he appears to endorse in his criticisms of, naturally, Griswold and Lawrence v. Texas (the latter decision struck down Texas' anti-sodomy laws). "

Rubbish. Griswold and Lawrence were both expansions of state power. Specifically, they were expansions of federal power at the expense of the individual states, and expansions of the judicial branchs power at the expense of the legislature and the people.

One of the characteristics of libertarianism is its belief that individual freedom is maximised by taking away the right of the people to make the laws they live under.

But the right of the people to make the laws they live under was THE core idea of the American Revolution.

Severn| 2.29.12 @ 11:00AM

>"Looking forward to the Antle column on how RINO Romney's disdain for conservatives is splitting the party"

The idea that Romney has "disdain" for conservatives is so breathtakingly stupid that I'm starting to wonder if the left might not have a point in doubting the intelligence of the right.

Back in 2008, Romney was the conservative challanger to John McCain. That is, Romney occupied the position currently taken by Santorum. And back then Santorum was (also stupidly) seen as the big governemnt RINO who'd endorsed Areln Specter. Nothing concrete has changed about the two men since then, except that the mob has rushed off baying in a different direction.

richard40| 2.29.12 @ 7:41PM

Agree completely with this article. You put your finger on exactly what I dislike most about Santorum. It is not just that he is very socially conservative, so was Reagan. It is that his social conservatism is completely divorced from any concern for libertarian values, just like the worste of Bush 2. I do not expect a repub to endorse all libertarian values, like legalizing drugs, but I at least expect them to respect and endorse libertarian ideas on the importance of small gov, civil liberties, and the free market. We cannot have a repub candidate that publically says he hates libertarians. That is almost half of the repub party, and has crossover appeal to lots of independents.

When the repubs manage to unify their socon and libertarian wings, like during Reagan, in 1994, and in 2010, we have landslide wins. When those wings split from each other, like in 1992, 2006, and 2008, we lose bigtime. One reason why I like the Tea Party so much is they unify libertarians with traditional conservatives. Santorum will destroy that unity. Romney, while not loved by either libertarians or socons, is at least acceptable to both, and will allow these 2 halves of the repub cooalition to remain united.

Charles| 3.4.12 @ 7:51AM

There's a difference between libertarianism and libertinism. Libertarians adopt principles and consistent logic that they attempt to conform their lives to. Libertines concoct principles and apply favorable strategies temporarily to justify and attain their selfish wants.

Latest Headlines

Back in the Fray

Kyle Peterson|78 comments

The IRS Immigration Fraud Scandal

Jeffrey Lord|94 comments

Obama’s Climate of Intimidation

Matthew Sheffield|55 comments

Whither Suburbia?

Steven Greenhut|23 comments

The Woman Who Wrote Liberty Valance

Bill Croke|26 comments

Not Super, But Pretty Good

Aaron Goldstein|17 comments

The Loss of Trust

Thomas Sowell|30 comments

Foreign Policy as Farce

Jed Babbin|87 comments

The Spectacle Blog

Thank You, Bobby Jindal

Matt Purple | 6:01PM

Buzzfeed Faces $3.6 Million Lawsuit for Copyright Infringement

Kaylin Bugos | 4:55PM

Democrat Dan Maffei Blames Budget Cuts for Girl’s Rape, Mother’s Murder

Robert Stacy McCain | 4:12PM

Pro-Life is Smart Politics

Rich Lizardo | 4:01PM

Gerson, Wehner, and the Losing Old Ways Crowd

Jeffrey Lord | 2:46PM

Are Young People Souring on Obama?

Matt Purple | 2:24PM

Boehner to Enforce Hastert Rule with Immigration Reform

Jordan Gonzalez | 1:10PM

U.S. to Restart Negotiations with Taliban

Kaylin Bugos | 12:01PM

FLASHBACK TO: 1995

Pope Culture

By George Sim Johnston

A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck

By P.J. O'Rourke

Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
Dames at Sea

By John Corry
In the Absence of Guns

By Mark Steyn

In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
The Metaphysical Martini

By Werner J. Dannhauser
Counting the Costs of Clintonism

By Robert H. Bork

The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
Chuck McHagel

By George Neumayr

It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted

By Douglas Bartholomew
It’s the Best Time of the Year

By Mark Steyn

The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
The Bush Crack-Up

By Brit Hume

Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?

The American Spectator

Political Hay

Con-fusion

About the Author

Letter to the Editor View all comments (215) | Leave a comment Leave a comment

Clint| 2.28.12 @ 6:35AM

florin| 2.28.12 @ 9:37AM

Doctor Right| 2.28.12 @ 4:46PM

Alan Brooks| 2.28.12 @ 10:56AM

Otis Cribblecoblis| 2.28.12 @ 11:53AM

Alan Brooks| 2.28.12 @ 12:59PM

Pete| 2.28.12 @ 4:31PM

Doctor Right| 2.28.12 @ 4:49PM

skip| 2.29.12 @ 11:51AM

TrueBlue | 2.28.12 @ 12:15PM

Alan Brooks| 2.28.12 @ 1:21PM

Pete| 2.28.12 @ 4:32PM

Doctor Right| 2.28.12 @ 4:53PM

Floyd Looney | 2.28.12 @ 5:13PM

Mike Hawk| 2.28.12 @ 6:57AM

L. Ross| 2.28.12 @ 8:21AM

Timothy L. Pennell| 2.28.12 @ 9:33AM

Mac Jehoff| 2.28.12 @ 11:57AM

Timothy L. Pennell| 2.28.12 @ 3:41PM

Hit Shead| 2.28.12 @ 5:54PM

Pimothy L. Tennell| 2.28.12 @ 6:17PM

Con Chef (NB) | 2.28.12 @ 9:02AM

Mike Hawk| 2.28.12 @ 11:07AM

Con Chef (NB) | 2.28.12 @ 11:26AM

Mike Hawk| 2.28.12 @ 11:44AM

Clint| 2.28.12 @ 5:58PM

Floyd Looney | 2.28.12 @ 5:13PM

Old Soldier| 2.28.12 @ 7:10AM

chuck| 2.28.12 @ 8:27AM

Old Soldier| 2.28.12 @ 10:01AM

Floyd Looney | 2.28.12 @ 5:15PM

Old Soldier| 2.28.12 @ 7:55PM

wodiej| 2.28.12 @ 10:08AM

chuck| 2.28.12 @ 3:30PM

Sean| 2.28.12 @ 8:42AM

Con Chef (NB) | 2.28.12 @ 9:15AM

Old Soldier| 2.28.12 @ 10:02AM

Con Chef (NB) | 2.28.12 @ 10:08AM

Old Soldier| 2.28.12 @ 10:34AM

Con Chef (NB) | 2.28.12 @ 11:29AM

Mac Jehoff| 2.28.12 @ 12:19PM

TrueBlue | 2.28.12 @ 12:11PM

Old Soldier| 2.28.12 @ 12:43PM

Severn| 2.29.12 @ 10:29AM

relhazio stegnarsson III| 2.29.12 @ 11:06AM

Charles| 3.4.12 @ 7:56AM

submandave | 2.29.12 @ 12:29PM

Clint| 2.28.12 @ 7:12AM

Mike Hawk| 2.28.12 @ 8:40AM

Con Chef (NB) | 2.28.12 @ 9:16AM

Mike Hawk| 2.28.12 @ 11:09AM

Clint| 2.28.12 @ 5:45PM

Occam's Tool| 2.28.12 @ 11:54AM

Claypoole| 2.28.12 @ 12:23PM

Clint| 2.28.12 @ 5:49PM

Doctor Right| 2.28.12 @ 4:56PM

Clint| 2.28.12 @ 5:51PM

Doctor Right| 2.28.12 @ 6:18PM

Severn| 2.29.12 @ 10:32AM

WM| 2.29.12 @ 7:11PM

Fiscal| 2.28.12 @ 7:15AM

Old Soldier| 2.28.12 @ 7:38AM

Drek| 2.28.12 @ 7:50AM

Fiscal| 2.28.12 @ 9:00AM

canuckistani| 2.28.12 @ 10:08AM

Al Adab| 2.28.12 @ 10:25AM

Fiscal| 2.28.12 @ 11:31AM

Al Adab| 2.28.12 @ 11:50AM

Moe Blotz| 2.28.12 @ 12:34PM

DRed| 2.28.12 @ 2:08PM

canuckistani| 2.28.12 @ 12:31PM

Doctor Right| 2.28.12 @ 5:00PM

Doctor Right| 2.28.12 @ 5:07PM

Al Adab| 2.28.12 @ 6:20PM

Simon Templar| 2.28.12 @ 12:26PM