The American Spectator

Robert Stacy McCain| 11.26.08 @ 12:37PM

Phil, I'd argue that we've passed the sell-by date of that particular brand of cultural libertarianism, which was made possible the ascendancy of Republican conservatism after 1994, and which especially flourished in opposition to the decidely un-libertarian reign of "compassionate conservatism."

Once Obama takes control of the White House, I suspect libertarians will be compelled to take more seriously the threats to economic freedom.

Mary| 11.26.08 @ 1:03PM

Reading that was almost like an out-of-body experience.

It made me think of the character Data on Startrek. But the writers imbued Data with something ineffably human. And this piece, for reasons I can't quite name, evoked something quite the opposite.

It wasn't always clear to me why Kirk said that while conservatism would not embrace socialism, it would accept it before it accepted libertarianism because it was "bottomless."

This election has made me appreciate my parents and their generation (I'm 53) in a way I had not before. I always knew they were superior to me, but I never realized to what extent.

Maybe it's the Thanksgiving season, I don't know, but if I could choose my parents I would choose my Mom and my Dad.

Bob| 11.26.08 @ 2:08PM

RSM -- Again, you seem to discard real events. The 1994 Contract with America led directly to George Bush and "compassionate conservatism" -- not vice-versa. In fact, Republicans today, especially at AmSpec, seem to relish the cultural conservatism of the religious right. Carl Rove knew he had to move to the left to retain the libertarian leaning Republican moderates. Without them, Bush could not have won. The same is true today. The intolerance of the so-con's is leading to libertarian leaning Republicans to declare themselves Independents. This culminated in such high ranking Republicans like Colin Powell and Bill Weld to back Obama. You've go the situation entirely reversed.

Thomas| 11.26.08 @ 2:24PM

Bob,

Have a nice time as part of the Democrat Party.

Happy Thanksgiving.

Bob| 11.26.08 @ 2:38PM

Thomas, do extremists like you celebrate Thanksgiving?

I will remain a Republican and fight for a return to the basics of conservative principles and an end to the tyranny of social conservatives. If you'd like to join me on issues of fiscal discipline, maintaining a strong military, and keeping government out of our private lives, both fiscally and socially, then let me know....

Thomas| 11.26.08 @ 6:24PM

Bob,

You said, "I will remain a Republican and fight for a return to the basics of conservative principles and an end to the tyranny of social conservatives."

By definition, social conservatives have "conservative" principles.

But, that aside, considering who just headed the Republican ticket, maybe it is time for YOU to join us. Or do you want to live in the People's Republic of North America?

Patrick M| 11.26.08 @ 10:44PM

"In fact, Republicans today, especially at AmSpec, seem to relish the cultural conservatism of the religious right."

And why not!?! The most reliable conservatives in Congress are invariably also social conservative Christian members. Check the pedigree of men like Tancredo, Coburn, etc. The Catholic church is standing up for the one fundamental and un-compromisable right - the right to life - while the Libertarian Party wallows the pitiable folly of 'choice' to kill humans.
The church also was instrumental in standing up against Communist rule in Poland, helping Solidarity, and thereby putting the cracks in the Soviet empire that made it crumble.

Meanwhile, here is what 30 years of Libertarian Party activism has wrought: Liberal Democrats winning some close elections they would have lost and NOTHING ELSE.

Christian underpinnings of conservatism inform us that man is a creature of God and life is sacred, that there is a higher authority besides Government, that there is a right and a wrong and a difference between the two, that the ends do not justify the means, that rules/laws must be followed ("render unto Caesar"), etc. The Natural Law is the moral foundation of liberty.

Libertarians are right to love freedom, but are wrong to diss the ancestral values and moral temperments that birthed that concept and gave it shape. I was a teenaged libertarian, but as I grew and matured, I understood that freedom unmoored from its foundational moral roots is like a house built on sand. (Check out Matthew 7:26).

BTW, pro-choicer Bill Weld and pro-affirmative-action Colin Powell are no more libertarian than bozo the clown. Using them as examples of libertarians defecting is hilarious; they are both liberal/RINO types. Weld's spending record was not fiscally prudent.

Bob| 11.27.08 @ 9:09AM

Thomas, social conservatives are NOT conservative. The name is a misnomer. If you want a summary treatise on "conservatism", look here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservatism

Cultural conservatism is normally based on a reactionary view in maintaining the original culture of the society. Cultural conservatives have been the last group to let things go like slavery, suffrage, and interracial marriage. However, your view of social conservatism is really not cultural, it's religious. The problem with religious conservatism in a multi-religious society is that it cannot be democratic or representative.

The fact that you and others would talk about the "Christian underpinnings of conservatism", show that you don't fully embrace a society with religious freedom.

As I've said before, social conservatives are the true RINO's of the party since they believe that political parties should be an offshoot of religion, and not vice-versa.

The sad case here is that being ideological does not solve problems. Trying to force your religion down the throats of others is making the Republican party smaller and less effective. Instead of being ideological, why can't you be results oriented. We all believe that abortions should be reduced. Wouldn't that be a nice outcome? Then why not get rid of your hate rhetoric against "pro-choice" people and work with them to achieve that goal through a combination of education (from both sides), contraception, electing representatives as examples (not like Palin who became pregnant before marriage), etc. Did you know that 88% of those that took virginity pledges eventually had premarital sex? You should be working with Planned Parenthood on a comprehensive program that includes both abstinence AND contraception/sexual education rather than against them. Because of your demonization, and that of Planned Parenthood as well, we can't put a good program out for our children. You cut of your nose to spite your face.

Without the Bill Weld's and Colin Powell's and John McCain's -- and yes, even me -- the 20% of the voting population that consider themselves social conservative Republicans cannot win any elections. Politics is about winning and religion is about belief. When you mix the two you lose.

Crusader| 11.27.08 @ 11:54AM

Its nice to see Bob the Democrat is still here. No self-respecting Republican would use Dem talking buzz words/phrases like:

"force your religion down the throats of others"
"abortions should be reduced"
"hate rhetoric"

Its not-so-subtle how you went from "so-cons" to "Cultural Consevatives" and tried to make them one and the same.

Bob are you ever going to answer how "so-cons" try to force their religion down your throat?

Finally, your argument that the 20% who consider themselves "so-cons" can't win without RINOs like you and those other RINOs mentioned is only half complete. RINOs can't win without us either. You can go as far left as you want but until you change that "R" after your name to a "D" no registered Democrat is going to vote for you. McCain, the MSM's favorite R, proved that.

Bob| 11.27.08 @ 1:02PM

Actually, Crusader, all intelligent libertarian leaning Republicans would talking about how you "force religion" on us. Using anti-abortion as a plank, in itself is a religious argument. Forcing abstinence without contraception and sexual knowledge is a religious argument. Calling Obama a socialist, or marxist, or Alinskyite is hate rhetoric.

If you are going to call me a "Democrat", then I can call you a "Right Wing Zealot", right? The fact is that we cannot win without each other which is why the party needs to concentrate on those thing in which we are in agreement, like fiscal responsibility, strong military, and limited government, and stay away from those things that separate us like pro-life, anti-intellectualism, calling this a "Christian Nation", etc. I believe that anyone who believes in the former should be a Republican and not be called a RINO.

By the way, to show how skewed your thinking has become and how you disregard (anti-intellectualism) facts, you completely forget about independents who now account for roughly one third of the voting public. Four years ago, Democrats and Republicans were both at about 37% of voters. This year, Democrats are at 39%, Republicans at 28%, and independents/other as the rest. Basically, many people have left the Republican party and have become independents. You and other so-cons have driven them away.

You can only disregard the facts so long.

Thomas| 11.27.08 @ 5:50PM

Bob,

I am afraid that you are projecting here. I have never espoused any "Christian Underpinnings" of society. I am a firm believer in not basing any laws on religion. I, in fact have stated on many occasions that the government should limit its law making to traditional English common law.

And one more time, I will post my definition of a conservative:

"True Conservatives share common beliefs concerning government and society:
1. Government should be limited to the least that is necessary to provide for the greatest freedom for the largest number of people while protecting basic rights for all.
2. Politicians should be discouraged from making laws that are not directly related to common law crimes [murder, rape, theft, etc.]
3. People should be encouraged to fend for themselves, not supported by the State.
4. Charity should be a personal matter, not a matter for the State.
5. All responsibility is personal, not shared. And it should be assumed at all times. No one is above the law.
This is the definition of a Conservative. If a persons belief system does not encompass these five points, then he, or she, is not a Conservative. "

Please feel free to disagree with this definition.

m farmer| 11.28.08 @ 1:52PM

Actually, I think it means that freedom moves in extra-political ways which in time, perhaps a short time with such rapid technological progress, may overwhelm the political grip by revealing incompetence, corruption and corporate prostitution. I understsand that freedom outside the political realm is vulnerable, but the power of technology and virtual social community might prove to be a powerful adversary and agent of political change -- change from outside forces, since the inside forces are resistant to change.

Bob| 11.29.08 @ 1:52PM

Thomas, we are in agreement except for the statement about "protecting basic rights". We probably define that differently. And that's where I have disagreements with the so-cons. They would include their definition of Christianity as part of "basic rights". Take that phrase out of your definition, and we would agree.

Thomas| 11.29.08 @ 8:29PM

Sorry Bob, but the protection of religious practice is part of your basic rights as is your right not to practice any religion. But, it is a must that common sense must prevail in any civilized society.

Most social conservatives do not want Christianity to be the state religion of the United States. They just want to be treated equally. The public celebration of Christmas should be allowed, not just Hanukkah and Ramadan. Prayer should not be a public school sponsored activity, but students should not be denied the opportunity to pray in school. Do not fear Christians, Bob. For Christianity in America is not likely to curtail any significant portion of your life style, neither will Judaism or Buddhism or Zoroastrianism or Bahai'ism or Jainism or Shintoism. Islam, as practiced by certain radical Imams, is a distinct threat to your way of life and should be watched, but not banned. These are some basic religious rights. You also have the right not to practice a religion. And just as no religious practitioner has the right to force you to engage in religious activities, you have no right to deny another his right to engage in religious activities unless those activities compel you to engage in the practices of that religion.

Once again common sense should prevail in the defining of basic rights. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness sound about right. Always remembering that your right to engage in any activity ends when it infringes upon my right to enjoy life. The only "right" that you and I truly disagree upon is the practice of abortion and we will never agree upon that because we have a fundamental difference of opinion on exactly when human life begins.

So, Bob, I am sure that you can agree that my definition is libertarian enough for you. There is really little difference between a conscientious libertarian and a Conservative.

YongCC| 10.30.09 @ 4:32AM

This election has made me appreciate my parents and their generation (I'm 53) in a way I had not before. I always knew they were superior to me, but I never realized to what extent to champions online resources.

Comer| 10.30.09 @ 4:34AM

which is why the party needs to concentrate on those thing in which we are in agreement, like fiscal responsibility, strong military, and limited government, and stay away from those things that separate us like pro-life, anti-intellectualism, calling this a "Christian Nation",so darkfall gold