Exactly why the dems are fighting the Private Accounts of Social Security. It takes a huge chunk of revenue away from them to spend on their entitlement and other giveaways. They fight school vouchers for the same reason along with their paean to the NEA. If the dems had written the Prescription Drug Bill it would have been even more expensive.

Bush is nothing if he isn't a practical politician. He always manages to get a pretty good return for being such a dumb guy. One of these days I bet we're going to get school vouchers as well.

Posted by: Ed Poinsett at April 1, 2005 08:39 AM

Libertarians like Sager fault the GOP and conservatives for not conforming to their idea of ideological purity.

This is foolish, as they shoot themselves in the foot instead of selling their ideas (many of which have merit).

I thought liberarians' goal was liberty, not idealogical purity?

Posted by: Kinda Libertarain at April 1, 2005 08:47 AM

Anyone who thinks a F 102 pilot is dumb is a democrat.

Posted by: Tom Lowry at April 1, 2005 08:49 AM

Speaking about private ownership,I am sure this will sound strange but I'm going to throw it out nevertheless, whenever I hear how Libertarian males consider themselves against big government control, for individual rights and so forth I have to wonder if they really mean it considering that thirty years ago Government intruded upon and denied any rights to the individual male and his sperm.

Posted by: susan at April 1, 2005 08:52 AM

...and if I hear any more vomit about "federalism" from Instaboy and his allies, I'm going to go scream.

The logic of his moronic argument would require conservatives to oppose federal anti-lynching laws and any effort to enforce the 14th and 15th amendments. (yes, I know Rehnquist and Scalia are this vilely demented, but that doesn't mean that they're right) The "conservatives" in question aren't brain-dead Kantians who can't choose between "federalism" and "human life." They believe that values are hierarchical, and that the preservation of human life and human dignity trumps federalism when the two genuinely conflict, as in this case.

Posted by: Ernest Brown at April 1, 2005 09:04 AM

I disagree. The gov't is big and getting bigger, but I don't think it's inevitable for that to always happen. The central theme for me of Mr. Sager's argument is that politicians can call themselves fiscally conservative without actually being fiscally conservative. It's the logic that says Bush supported tax cuts, so he's a fiscal conservative even though he signs every spending increase. At some point actions have to be considered over rhetoric.

Specifically, if Republicans are indeed spending liberally only to achieve certain conservative goals like HSAs and school choice, why did the Bush Administration feel so compelled to hide the true cost of the prescription-drug benefit until the legislation passed? And liberals don't control the Congress now, so why has spending continued to increase?

Posted by: Tony at April 1, 2005 09:07 AM

Exactly. Very well said. Bill Quick is so full of shit he sqeaks, and Sager has joined him in the Great Libertarian Bitch: we're afraid of your religion, fundy. That's what this boils down to, and you can see it in their writing. It takes less than a paragraph before they bandy the "T" word around: "theocracy".

Look--libertarians need conservatives much more than conservatives need libertarians. Sager's stupid game of "what-if" is meaningless, and I'm not so sure it's smart for libertarians to open the door on the "what-ifs". Libertarianism is ALL "what-if" since it is regularly practiced largely nowhere--What if legalized drugs turn us into addled zombies? What if collusion between privately owned interstates decide to charge $10 a mile? What if Harry Browne blows a fuse and orders the 3rd I.D. into Cuba to pick him up a mojito?

This coalition works because it is a coalition--disparate groups coming together for common cause. Sometimes there are squabbles, which are best resolved by not complaining that somebody got their God into your Rand. But that coalition is meaningless if you don't get shit done, and that means compromise. Do I like that NCLB bill? Not really, but if it means one step closer to school choice, which means one step closer to local control of schools, I'll live with it. Incrementalism: it works for boiling a frog, and it works for changing a government.

The Libertarian Party is a sordid history of smuggery and self-congratulation for never sacrificing its principles. Well, good job, boys, what have you got to show for it? Ron Paul.

Libertarians need to get over their Godophobia and learn to embrace their wacky fundamentalist brothers. The more fundy the better, actually. It's the hardcore fundamentalists that really take a dim view of government control of religious matters, because they're afraid the government will do to Jesus what it did to education.

Posted by: rho at April 1, 2005 09:11 AM

I agree as well. I wish these die-hard libertarians would show a little patience in the evolution of society. These things cannot happen in one term, they take decades.
If Bush didn't sign the Medicaid bill, the democrats could use this as an election issue to get a bigger benefit passed. Same with NCLB.
But both allow for significant changes and also took serious weapons away from the opposition.

Posted by: Half Canadian at April 1, 2005 09:37 AM

I voted Republican for the first time in my life during this last election specifically because of the President's actions in the War on Terror. I supported it then and I support it now.

But that's the last time I'll be doing it down ticket...

This libertarian thought you guys meant small government so I voted for you. You aren't so now I won't.

You're dangerously close to doing the same thing the Democrats have done: alienate the rest of the coalition that brought you to this dance.

Posted by: Michael Mealling at April 1, 2005 09:40 AM

I came here agreeing with Sager, but after reading rho's brilliant comment above, I've laughed my way back to normalacy. Libertarians (myself included) should make a more serious effort to tune their philosophy back to Aristotle (who even Rand admits based her fundamental roots on) and re-reading about the Golden Mean rather than clinging to unrealistic ideology.

By the way, I'm stealing that "God into your Rand" line. Laughing this hard at work could get me fired.

Posted by: Jake at April 1, 2005 09:40 AM

This libertarian thought you guys meant small government so I voted for you. You aren't so now I won't.

That's fine, but, like Sager, you don't address the issue of the Ownership Society. I don't think you have any good arguments to make against it. At least, I've yet to hear any. You are ducking the issue, so why should anyone take you seriously?

Posted by: John Weidner at April 1, 2005 09:47 AM

As the author notes, look in the details. For every piece of "big gubmint" legislation that's passed, there are important private sector components that are designed to begin to wean dependency off of government, and into the private sector. From Medicare and prescription drugs to Social Security private accounts, the goal is to move fiscal dependency from Uncle Sugar back to the market.

Orthodoxy can be a vice when it keeps you from seeing the forest for the trees...

Posted by: MEC2 at April 1, 2005 10:01 AM

John Weidner's points are well taken, but it is a weak defense of social conservatives. Which religious or social conservatives are praising Bush on the prescription drug benefit or the Department of Education? We may tolerate it more, but we are not thrilled by it. It is tolerated because Bush is doing well on the number one issue for social conservatives: judges. I don't understand why liberatarians are not supporting Bush more on judges. It is a lot more difficult to change bad judicial rulings than to change bad legislation or bad budgeting.

Posted by: Kyle at April 1, 2005 10:01 AM

The trouble with the so-called "fundies," a.k.a. the Religious Right (may God have mercy upon their poor lost and tormented souls), is that they have begun to see the government as a means for attaining their vision of creating heaven on Earth.

But the apparent manifestation of "Godophobia" in the libertarian faction of the GOP (and the Libertarian Party) is not so much about concern over the spectre of theocracy -- though admittedly that is the common perception among the differently sophisticated -- as it is about the rejection of the politicization of religion, specifically Christianity.

When government grows to the point where it is difficult to tell the difference between church and state, that growth becomes a threat to the spiritual well-being of the nation by causing increased confusion over where and to whom people should look for moral guidance.

And, in case anyone has failed to notice, only a few people and groups have actually benefitted from the politicization of Christianity -- but those benefits are anything but spiritual -- while the vast majority of Christians have had to deal with the fallout and the backlash it is causing.

There were very good reasons why our founders wanted to establish a separation between church and state, not the least of which can be found in the very first of the 10 Holy Commandments, "Thou shalt have no other gods before me." (Exodus 20:3).

Posted by: Margaret Romao Toigo at April 1, 2005 10:02 AM

Hello, Libertarian here...

Yep, you're right. There's a bunch of fence-riders like me who are sick of the Republicans' sugar and steel subsidies, new drug entitlements, etcetera -- but who also think the Libertarians-formal are completely full of it. Anybody who's read his Drucker knows that an ideologically pure party cannot win in America. And any American political party that doesn't know who Drucker is deserves to lose flat-out. On the other hand, when The American Conservative puts out hit pieces like this, it's fair to wonder why us mini-gov types are being painted as drugged-out sluts and hippies just because we can't figure out why it's impossible for a majority party to cut actual single digits out of the budget.

Am I and most "l"ibertarians terrified of some kind of new theocracy? Nope. Why not? See Drucker, above. The Dems lost because they pushed a religion of p.c. socialism. If the Repubs ever get dumb enough to pull the same trick, they'll suffer the same fate. Do Bush's forays into big-gov irritate me? Yep: I'm not convinced that it's legitimate tactical triangulation. Do I understand the Ownership Society and similar Republican ideas, like the kick-ass FairTax proposal? Yep, and I hope they work. But "L" libertarians are a six-digit population in a 9-digit nation, and "l" libertarians, like Bush-voting moi are pretty much stuck over a barrel: the Republican primary is our only game in town, since to this day the Dems haven't figured out Econ101. Articles like Sager's and Locke's do nothing but help the Democrats and their Tranzi allies in Brussels.

Posted by: Russ at April 1, 2005 10:05 AM

Yes. As David Brooks pointed out months ago, the "Ownership Society" idea is an attempt to progressively reduce the *demand* for gov't before reducing the *supply* of gov't.

This is a new and legitimate approach to the limited-government issue and libertarians need to make an effort to understand how it should work. Because we need to watch carefully to see if that's what really happens.

Conservatives could easily become just as hypocritical as liberals in their love of power & authority, and bigger bureaucracies & budgets to impose their ideologies.

Posted by: Tom Paine at April 1, 2005 10:26 AM

Count me into the camp of those who wonder why the supposed Libertarian/Conservative marriage should be saved. If it is a marriage, it is a disfunctional one; with one partner calling all the shots and setting all the agendas. I think pretty much all recent legislative activity is proof of that.

I will consider myself aligned with the Republican party again when, and only when, they reafirm their commitment to smaller government, reform the patent system, reform copyright law, move away from the DCMA, get the Federal government out of the marriage business and otherwise prove they care about free speech and a free society. Until then I am a man without a party -- because the Democrats are controlled by the moonbats and the Libertarians Party is addled with its own flavor of loonyness.

We need another Benjamin Franklin. Bad...

Posted by: Jack William Bell at April 1, 2005 10:27 AM

Yep, same old libertarian whining. Reading through the archives, this is still very relevant:

http://posseincitatus.typepad.com/posse_incitatus/2005/02/ramesh_vs_ryan_.html

Posted by: Posse Incitatus at April 1, 2005 10:29 AM

Susan - the libertarian males don't need or desire to have the government come in and protect them. We'll control our own sperm thank you very much.

On the whole, the Republican's recent nannyism and intervention into just about everything - and they do hold a majority now - has jeopardized whether they get my vote. They can be just as bad or worse than democrats with regard to passing legislation that serves no government purpose (other than to generate revenue). Look, I won't vote for the Dems, but if you lose too many like me to a 3rd party candidate, say goodbye to your majority. Heck, if it weren't for the war, and Badnarik's crappy stance on that, you might have lost me this year.

Posted by: Kid Handsome at April 1, 2005 10:37 AM

>>> The Medicare bill included HSA's, and NCLB included the parental-choice provisions.

Gimme a break, these are simply fig leaves to cover Bush' expansion of government size and spending. Where's my MSA? Where's my private school voucher? Why is it that the "compromises" involving greater federal spending are always very real and very tangible and the things that were supposed to be chalked up in the "smaller government" column never materialize?

Remember when the Republicans were gonna do away with something as unimportant as the NEA? Whatever happened to that? Instead, Bush creates entire new federal 100,000 employee bureaucracies and new cabinet positions.

Any Republican die-hard who shrieked bloody murder over Hillarycare but now merely shrugs (or worse defends) prescription drug coverage is hypocritical beyond all compare. My only hope is that some Republicans can still think for themselves and acknowledge Bush selling out the principles of limited government.

I'm not sure how much more "small government" from the GOP this libertarian can bear. Bush was my first and last experiment with voting for "small government" Republicans.

Posted by: John at April 1, 2005 10:39 AM

"Reduce the *demand* for gov't before reducing the *supply* of gov't" may be a workable concept, but I'm not buying the "reduce *demand* for gov't by increasing the *supply* of gov't while adding a dash of choice and ownership" theory currently being practiced. Increasing the supply only encourages the lobbyist/special interests that their choice is more of the same.

Quoting the theory in defense of the actual legislative outcomes strikes me as wrapping the package in the best spin possible. "I'm giving you this small, cheap gift but I'm going to wrap it in a pretty box. Aren't you thrilled at how generous I am?"

Posted by: Tony at April 1, 2005 10:43 AM

Thank God Reagan didn't have the same attitude that the filth bags in the White House have towards big government, towards the Soviet Union, i.e. that we must accept it, its permenant and we have got to learn to live with it, etc. etc.

Every Presidential election since 1964, the candidate advocating less government, conservative values, the Washington outsider has won.
And even in 1964, no one would have called LBJ a liberal on defense or law and order issues either.
We have been Bush wacked. Bush hasn't even tried.
Not one GD veto, another Federal department and more threats against or freedom.
Bush is a traitorous scumbag. He stinks.

Posted by: Terry at April 1, 2005 10:46 AM

Margaret's comment suggests that Libertarians can inject religion (ideology) in their politics but that Christians cannot. Or would she deny politicization just to fundies like myself because we're too stupid? When you argue from authority (libertarian=smart), or ad hominem (fundamentalist Christians are too stupid to have political power) you are guilty of a logical fallacy. Perhaps we need an analogy to Godwin's law. The first person to question the intelligence of another person rather than engage their argument is guilty of the Michael Moore fallacy.

There is nothing wrong with fundamentalist Christians getting involved in politics. Marxists do it, postmoderns do it, feminists do it, queer theorists do it, libertarians do it, and all do it to acquire power. So fundies should sit back and let those people pass laws on the disabled, immigration, terrorism, school vouchers, pornography, drug legalization, gun ownership, and social security? I think not.

Posted by: mk at April 1, 2005 10:51 AM

I still do not see why (L)libertarians are blaming religious conservatives for big budgets. Outside of Bush himself, who are these fundamentalists pushing for increased spending? Cal Thomas, Bill Bennet, Focus on the Family, Family Research Council? Have any of these pushed for increased spending? We disagree on abortion, gay marriage, and assisted suicide, but these are hardly budget busting issues. As far as I can see, the Senators hurting the budget most are Chafee, Snowe, Collins, and Spector. None of them are heros to the religious right.

Posted by: Kyle at April 1, 2005 10:51 AM

Bush signed every single piece of spending that crossed his desk. You are seriously telling me that every one of these is an important component of the "Ownership Society"? Not one piece of spending can be turned down because it might hurt on election day? We already have that kind of politician; they're called democrats.

Posted by: Matt at April 1, 2005 10:58 AM

NCLB may cause some states to opt out(Utah,Vermont) not taking Federal funds. Sounds like a good idea to me.

Posted by: roux at April 1, 2005 11:07 AM

Here's the basic fallacy with the "Ownership Society" and the reduction in demand for government: People want and need services. The belief that private business can provide these services more efficiently to informed consumers is an interesting theoretical idea. That idea, however, depends on two things: (1) private business providing the services more efficiently; and (2) informed consumers. In practice, neither of these will be true for large segments of the population, who will still demand these services. At the end of the day, the government will still be providing these services to the people to whom they are currently provided. "Big" government is here to stay.

Posted by: Steven at April 1, 2005 11:07 AM

John,
I agree with you on the Ownership Society bit. I'm not saying that the GOP has gotten completely as bad as Democrats. The issue for me is this:

if the ownership society is the actual plan that's being snuck in by bribing the Democrats and the country into accepting it, then how come its the Shiavo case that gets the Republican (plus some Democrats) back to Congress in a rare Sunday session and the Ownership society stuff gets stuck in the back seat?

I used to be the kind of Libertarian that would advocate getting rid of the every single department of the government at midnight tonight and say to hell with the consequences. I'm not anymore so don't try and paint me as one.

But what I see is that the GOP is not putting its resources and energy where its rhetoric is. The energy spent on Shiavo should have been spent on figuring out how to shut at least one government program down.

Plus, an ownership society where the government determines what form of ownership I can have is to close to the Democrats wet dream of gaining institutional control over my IRAs and 401k.

So yea, its one strategy of getting rid of Social Security. Again, I'm not saying that the GOP has _completely_ given up on the economic message. But I also don't see any suggestion that the GOP is even paying lip service to the concept of limited government when it comes to social issues. Hell, the new Republican majority we have here in Georgia just passed a freaking smoking ban for crying out loud. How can anyone with a straight face call that "small government"?

Again, John, the GOP's job is to convince me to stay, not suggest that I'm wrong for not wanting the things the GOP is meant to stand for.

As a lone Republican here in Georgia said in the well a few weeks ago: "When do we get to start acting like Republicans?"

Posted by: Michael Mealling at April 1, 2005 11:09 AM

Now if you told me that the strategy is to actually pass as much pork legislation as possible with the firm knowledge that it will create a system that is completely unworkable and falls completley apart in just a few years (reference the suggestion that Vermont and Utah may opt out of NCLB), that I can understand. But to suggest that things like the NCLB and the SS compromize that's coming is actually the entire point isn't going to convince me that you're actually fighting for smaller government.

But even if that's the case, why not just vote the Democrats completely into power and let them run it into the ground faster?

Posted by: Michael Mealling at April 1, 2005 11:14 AM

Enough.

I'm going to state right off the bat, I think libetarians are idiots. A reasonable person who understand politics is about compromise, pushing hard when possible, and moving within a party to orient it to his own ideology. Libetarians are people who've already decided that the Republican party isn't "pure" enough, sacrificing their own goals for the sake of their pseudo-religious purity.

Every Republican President committed to small government has signed gigantic budgets and also tax increases, including Reagan. The Ownership Society is a profoundly new way of competing with traditional big-government Democrats, because every tax cut advanced by Republicans as a "starve the beast" proposition in order to simultaneously reduce spending has been characterized as a giveaway for the rich, with mixed success. That is a fact of politics the Libetarians are too cowardly to deal with. Furthermore, a Laffer-curve analysis of tax cuts prohibits the very idea of "starving the beast" because it ends up as a way to increase revenues by growing the economy, which Republicans are forced to use to defend themselves against the class-warfare tactics of the left. Shrinking government is nearly NEVER considered once these arguments play out, which is why spending cuts never happen. Apart from the multitudes of interest groups defending their petty interests, the nature of politicial incumbency means that individuals representing their state or district must be seen as "doing something" for their constituents, and the EASIEST thing to do is to bring home the bacon. It's not the only thing, but it is the easiest thing, and politicians like most people are lazy and will spend money in order to prove their worth.

The Ownership Society attacks all of that by turning the argument on its head, making it about what you want to buy and what your choices are in the 21st century. This revolution was foreshadowed by Gingrich in the mid-1990s, when he wrote academic articles about the Third Wave, but even he couldn't pull off the politics of it, having been defeated by Clinton. Bush is smarter than that, which is why Libetarian criticism of him is idiotic and childish. The Ownership Society is a revolutionary idea that will grow in force as networked solutions and the internet-age develop into maturity. Mere libetarian complaint about cutting the size of government sounds obsolete because it doesn't address the necessary transformation from a hierarchical society and government into an internet-based and networked-based society, with little hierarchies.

The revolution of media and of the MSM by the blogosphere is a perfect example of this. You will see the same thing with government, if you give it a chance. Staying pure to ideals without thought of the processes and politics involved here is insanely stupid, which is why I have little or no respect for libetarians. If they're so damn smart, they should understand all of this and work with Bush on the politics of it to sell it to the American people, still addicted like drug-users to the federal hierarchy (yet all the while engaging in revolutionary networked choices by getting Ipods, reading blogs, choosing from a million different consumer choices, and thousands of different mutual funds and 401ks).

That libetarians are complaining, at this point, is so ridiculous that I'm tempted to say: to hell with you, we social conservatives will do it on our own. Social conservatives WILL do it on their own, because the first choice most near and dear to them are our schools: and we hate athiestic, entrenched, hierarchial schools. We want choice in them. THIS is where the so-called "alliance" should begin, but if libetarians are too dumb to realize it, then enjoy the frickin' wilderness.

Posted by: Sydney Carton at April 1, 2005 11:27 AM

Sigh..... great. I was going to possibly give money to the GOP and might have even helped out Republican Liberty Caucus members in the next election. But with sentiment like that, why should it? You're not for limited government, you're only for government run according to your point of view. A point of view that's driven by religious faith and not by any desire to build a republic that respects all points of view by not getting involved unless direct fraud or harm have been committed.

Yep.... at best you just lost a vote. It probably actually means you just caused a potential Republican activist to donate his time to a democrat if he can find one...

Posted by: Michael Mealling at April 1, 2005 11:40 AM

I'm confident that Bush is serious about an owndership society, at least in the most important ways, but not at all confident that the social conservative wing of the Republican Party are with him on it. I'd rather see an Independence movement pick up the work started by Bush and co and take it all the way.

Posted by: J.Kende at April 1, 2005 11:49 AM

Does that "rho" guy, who posted at 9:11 a.m. this morning, have a blog? With all due respect to the blogger-in-chief on this particular page, rho's comments are some of the most intelligent and well-written (and witty) I've read on the subject of coalition politics.

I want to read more.

Posted by: the gift at April 1, 2005 11:52 AM

Michael,

Think for a minute. You keep mentioning about running things into the ground. Well, Europe has been socialistic for over a generation and it still hasn't expired, and won't for probably another generation, if even that. It takes a lot for a government to destroy the natural human spirit of enterprise, requiring perhaps a police state to do it. Unless you fantasize about idiotic Randian hopes of an intellectual strike, the government, even a socialistic one, will live for a LONG time as the beast that it is.

Secondly, would you please stop with the subtle hints of your bigotry? Republicans are humans, and they have priorities that are bigger than the dealings of government. For one thing, they prioritize values: human life comes before government. Furthermore, they strongly believe that the right to life as declared in the Declaration of Independence was at stake here, and that government is instiuted to secure that right (again as Jefferson said). The Schiavo case was viewed through the lens of judicial tyranny and the juciary's alliance with a culture of death. Conservatives rightly value individual life over false claims of judicial superiority. But even despite that, it was a hard issue and to throw up your hands over that means that you have little if any perspective.

If you're determined to leave, then leave. The strong and the smart will finish the job.

Posted by: Sydney Carton at April 1, 2005 11:58 AM

Note: HSA's are MSA's with a slightly different name.

"Again, John, the GOP's job is to convince me to stay, not suggest that I'm wrong for not wanting the things the GOP is meant to stand for."

The point of my post is not that you are necessarily wrong, but that the arguments of libertarian types are slippery to the point of dishonesty if you refuse to acknowledge or debate what is a central part of Bush's program.

Maybe I've missed things, but I've yet to see a thoughtful critique of the Ownership Society. Makes me suspect you don't have one.

I intentionally left social/religious/Schiavo issues out of my post, to try to narrow it to this one subject.

Posted by: John Weidner at April 1, 2005 12:04 PM

"If Bush didn't sign the Medicaid bill, the democrats could use this as an election issue to get a bigger benefit passed. Same with NCLB.
But both allow for significant changes and also took serious weapons away from the opposition." - Exactly.

"This libertarian thought you guys meant small government so I voted for you. You aren't so now I won't." - Exactly who are you going to vote for? Hillary? Or are you going to burn yourself in effigy and vote Libertarian?

"The American Conservative puts out hit pieces like this,..." - Being pilloried by Buchanan is an honor. It means you're not an American Nazi.

"That idea, however, depends on two things: (1) private business providing the services more efficiently; and (2) informed consumers. In practice, neither of these will be true for large segments of the population, who will still demand these services. At the end of the day, the government will still be providing these services to the people to whom they are currently provided. "Big" government is here to stay." - A sound "argument" Steven. When are you moving to Canada?

"Sydney Carton" - Amen.

Posted by: The Apologist at April 1, 2005 12:19 PM

I'm not going to critique it because I'm all for it. Did I ever say I didn't like the entire idea of an Ownership Society? What I wouldn't like is an Ownership Society where the concept of 'own' is so contorted by regulation that it means nothing. Which is my concern with putting the 'ownership' under government regulation. I.e. if Bush puts through private accounts for SS and they're not 100% completely private then you're only 5 Democratic congressmen away from regulations on how you can spend that money you supposedly 'own'.

Sure, the Ownership Society is a good thing, but not at the expense of growth in government that either destroys the economy through deficits (no, the ones we have now aren't bad, its the ones to come that can get bad) or increased taxes. What good does it do me to put some percentage of my SS money into a private account if that same percentage or more is taken from me by taxes or inflation?

Am I not supposed to fault the GOP for cutting taxes (a good thing) and then turning around and passing more pork than is ever eaten at a Denny's on Saturday morning?

If that much pork is a Bad Thing (and I hope you agree with me that it is) then how are you going to change their behavior? By going along with them?

Posted by: Michael Mealling at April 1, 2005 12:26 PM

Michael,

Feel free to relocate to the wilderness as Sydney suggests. Why don't you just vote for that Libertarian freak who turned himself blue. He may be a moron, but he's ideologically pure. . . As always, an intellectually immature Libertarian make the perfect the enemy of the good.

Posted by: Not Either Type of "Libby" at April 1, 2005 12:27 PM

Could someone please tell me that Sydney doesn't speak for the majority in the GOP? I don't care if you lie about it, just that you care enough about appearances to at least try and put a fig leaf over it.

Posted by: Michael Mealling at April 1, 2005 12:29 PM

Even if we accept that the Republican Party is commited fiscally to an Ownership Society (which isn't so certain), the social conservative wing is showing no interest in limited government on social issues. Schiavo aside, when does the long arm of government end? If we end up agreeing on money and war, that's great... But if the Republican Party is the party of big government on social issues, and the Democratic Party is the party of big government on fiscal issues, those of us who are looking for the trifecta of small government in finance and social imposition along with a tough national defense, will have to go looking elsewhere. The Libertarian Party isn't a serious option, for all the reasons listed very well in these comments here. So what will it be?

Posted by: J.Kende at April 1, 2005 12:33 PM

Michael,
Of course we could end up with "ownership" crippled by regulation. But this is unlikely because ownership tends to push things in the other direction. For instance, 401-K's used to have more regulation over investments and spending than they do now.

As I see it, the big argument for ownership isn't that Republicans will get things just right, or can be trusted in the long run, but that once people have it they will tend to push for more freedom rather than less, and will also tend to act more responsibly.

Posted by: John Weidner at April 1, 2005 12:37 PM

I believe the concern about a theocracy is a scam.
We all believe pretty firmly in the First Amendment's establishment clause.
Thus, the tactical victory goes to whomever can claim his opponent's idea stems from religion. Once that's asserted, the idea becomes forbidden because it violates the doctrine of separation of church and state.
Suppose, just for example, somebody arrived at a pro-life position from a non-religious point of view. That could be dangerous, so it must be labled as religious fundamentalism which has no place in a society which includes the First Amendment.
Once the issues got a bit more difficult to label as coming from, say, Rome, the practice changed to pointing with alarm to a potential theocracy as a method of discrediting any idea that could not be managed on the merits or lack of same.
It's sort of the way the accusation of racism is used.

Posted by: Richard Aubrey at April 1, 2005 12:46 PM

mk wrote: "Margaret's comment suggests that Libertarians can inject religion (ideology) in their politics but that Christians cannot. Or would she deny politicization just to fundies like myself because we're too stupid?"

First of all, I did not question anybody's intelligence. "Differently sophisticated" referred to libertarians -- and other theophobia sufferers -- who run about screaming, "Theocracy is comming! The sky is falling! Theocracy is coming!" every time a politician mentions God or uses words like faith, values and morals.

Whether mk realizes it or not, he or she has become yet another victim of the politicization of Christianity because he or she has become so accustomed to the backlash against all Christians that he or she is reading subliminal insults where there are none "fundamentalist Christians are too stupid to have political power[!?]"

How on Earth did mk derive such nonsense -- the notion that any group is "too stupid" to have political power -- from what I wrote?

Perhaps that is because mk, like many other Christians, is feeling the heat of the socio-political fallout resulting from decades of false prophets, masquerading as politicians, pandering to the pride and fear of the lost and tormented souls of the Religious Right (may God have mercy upon them), which has lead to the increasing politicization of Christianity, which has caused many Christians to feel defensive about their faith -- and in a country where freedom of religion is one of our most significant founding principles no less!

mk wrote: "There is nothing wrong with fundamentalist Christians getting involved in politics."

Of course there isn't! And I never intended to suggest as much, either. However, there is a difference between getting involoved in the community (after all, apathy is a form of sloth) and worshipping a graven image -- in the form of the US government -- in the hope of it providing deliverance and grace.

mk wrote: "So fundies should sit back and let those people pass laws on the disabled, immigration, terrorism, school vouchers, pornography, drug legalization, gun ownership, and social security? I think not."

In America, not only does everyone have a voice, but also a duty to use it as well. But the government cannot have any real effect upon temptation and sin (regardless of any sort of prohibitive legislation) and it certainy isn't going to save anybody's soul, which is what the lost and tormented souls of the Religious Right seem to have begun to believe -- and in doing so they have, whether they realize it or not, turned away from God.

Posted by: Margaret Romao Toigo at April 1, 2005 12:52 PM

I think there is a major linguistic disconnect. People like rho and Sydney are arguing against the capital L libertarians, not the lower case l libertarians. To the extent they are talking about capital L libs, they are right, inflexible, politically stupid, largely irrelevent.

Those aren't the libertarians we're talking about. We are talking about the 'libertarians' inside the R big tent. The ones who do compromise. The more politically active tend to call themselves 'small l' libertarians, the less politically active call themselves 'fiscal conservatives' to distinguish themselves from conservative conservatives. And they are a huge, and vital part of the coalition. Rho argues that 'libertarians need conservatives more than conservatives need liberertarians'. BS. Both need each other. If they don't cooperate (meaning both get something out of the deal) neither one wins...the socialists do.

Conservatives argue 'where are the libs going to go'? The answer is to the D's. The Conservatives aren't going to go anywhere...they own the GOP. If the D's can make the right sweet talk towards the middle some of those 'fiscal conservatives' become 'social liberals' (as opposed to liberal liberals) and the D's win. That really is the swing vote. It is not often politically active enough to identify themselves as libertarians, but the libertarian ideology closely represents the way they think. Conservatives may or may not come out in strength and often provide the feet on the ground organization for the R's and can be a major donation source, but it is the 'small l' libertarians that really are the swing vote. We may never get all that we want, but make the R tent sufficiently unpalatable, and we'll get at least a little of what we want from the D's. If the R's don't give us the fiscal conservative side of the house, we'll take the socially liberal side of the house from the D's. At the very least, I will try to get the opposite parties in control of the legislative and executive branches in an effort to stalemate the gov't expansion.

As to the original post's point, the argument is simple. We don't buy it...we see the 'ownership society' as a fig leaf rather than a real effort. You simply don't shrink the government by growing the government.

I have no problem with faith based initiatives as such. If they replaced some of the existing welfare bureacracy, I would support it. But it didn't. It was in addition to the existing bureacracy. Dramatically increasing federal education funding to get NCLB? I am not so rigid as to reject all funding increases, but that is a pathetic effort at an ownership society. It was written by Fat Ted Kennedy. Now, if you said, increase federal funding but put all of the increase in the form of vouchers direct to parents, I could have dealt with that. But a huge increase in funding in order to plant a seed that may possible someday sprout that may possibly someday lead somehow to school choice? No way.

I think there are two possibilities...one is that the the R's move back toward the Reagan values they once espoused (where they at least give lip service to small gov't) and we maintain the status quo. The other is that the Bush/Rovian 'third way' electoral strategery succeeds in compromising both fiscal conservatism and destroying the D coalition as it now exists. Once the D's are destroyed, the small l libertarians will form the core of the new coalition that becomes the opposition party to the R's.

I'm not sure which option I would prefer. Would I rather be a permanent red headed stepchild, or would I rather be totally out in the cold for quite a while, but eventually get real control? Not sure, but it really isn't my choice. The 'conservative conservatives' will make it for me.

For the record...I predict that the 'ownership society' with regard to the SS debate also gets tanked. It either drops all together, or it becomes gov't controlled rather than individually controlled, or becomes 'in addition to' the existing social security payments rather than letting me have some of my money back. All of which seriously compromise my ownership in the 'ownership society'

Posted by: Blanknoone at April 1, 2005 01:00 PM

"I thought liberarians' goal was liberty, not idealogical purity?"

"Liberty" is what it is, and it is not anything else. And you can indict "ideological purity" like some ordinary chimpanzee all day long if you want to, but you're never going to repeal the law of identity. I know that "principle" is anathema these days, but it is not a bad thing to stand up for them, no matter what you think of it.

Posted by: Billy Beck at April 1, 2005 01:02 PM

Richard,
I'm from the south. I've lived here my entire life and spent most of it growing up in a small south Georgia town. And I'm not Christian. I was raised as a Southern Baptist and ended up rejecting it when I was 17. (I used to be stupid enough to call myself an athiest until I found out what agnostic meant). So I know exactly what its like to live in that "scam". I've been to book and tape burnings that were sponsored by local churches which were advertised in government schools with the administration's explicit acknowledgement.

From my personal experience I can definitely see the end result of politics based on theology. I have no bigotry toward Christians (I can't, my entire family disagrees with me and I still go to church with them from time to time). But I do have a very fundamental and visceral hatred when it comes to anyone who thinks government should even acknowledge religion much less have the power to do anything about it.

So, you'll have to forgive me if, after having suffered all of that, I ask you to prove that you're not going to ram your religions assumptions down my throat before I give you the benefit of the doubt. So far I haven't seen a shreed of proof otherwise.

Posted by: Michael Mealling at April 1, 2005 01:07 PM

Check out the Annie E. Casey Foundation website - not exactly a conservative group - they advocate bringing people out of poverty by "building assets". Some of the assets are tangible: car, home, etc.

What a country!

Posted by: Shiloh at April 1, 2005 01:28 PM

Blanknoone's response sums up the unspoken portion of mine very well -- we the "l" libertarians are not athat 6-digit population in a 9-digit country... and although we would prefer that the Ownership society actually work as advertised, if the Ownership Society does turn into a fig leaf, me and mine will throw everything they've got into generating Clinton-style deadlock for the forseeable future.

But that's down the road, and Blanknoone is right -- YOU make that call, not us. Remember, Clinton also called for SS reform -- just because Bush would like to do something with it, hardly means that he owns the issue if another Dem is smart enough to start recognizing Econ101. Remember when the great co-op happened? If it weren't for the Hillarycare and ATF overreaches, the Democrats would still be in power.

But when folks like Locke start priming the pan for antilibertarianism, and the APSA (American Political Science Association) has conservative members hosting panels entitled "a creeping (and creepy) libertarianism," we who were/are your coalition members start wondering why we're suddenly in the crosshairs. Sager is a political naif, but the problem is real.

Posted by: Russ at April 1, 2005 01:43 PM

"Here's the basic fallacy with the "Ownership Society" and the reduction in demand for government: People want and need services. The belief that private business can provide these services more efficiently to informed consumers is an interesting theoretical idea. That idea, however, depends on two things: (1) private business providing the services more efficiently; and (2) informed consumers. In practice, neither of these will be true for large segments of the population, who will still demand these services. At the end of the day, the government will still be providing these services to the people to whom they are currently provided. "Big" government is here to stay."

How in the hell do you know that large segments of the population will never be informed? Because they don't inform themselves in situations where they're forbidden to use their own judgement anyway? Why would they behave the same way when they're permitted to use their own judgement?

The Ownership Society is a nice concept. But unless these spending hikes are reversed, what the Ownership Society will mean in practice is not only will my taxes go up, but a portion of my money that is technically not taxed away will be removed from my control and placed into "personal accounts" where its use will be restricted, thus decreasing my effective income even further. This leaves me worse off than I am now, no matter how you slice it.

I'd rather our side take a chance and push some actual cuts through, and some deregulation. The 1995 Congress actually passed significant cuts and would have gotten them written into law if not for Presidential veto - which would not be forthcoming this time around. I'd much rather that they go for it again on the budget and push deregulation rather than go to the mat for things like increased TV regulation.

Unless the Republican representatives we have now fundamentally only care about restricting our viewing and stuff like that and have no actual desire to limit spending or economic controls in any way. If that's the case, what use are they?

Posted by: Ken at April 1, 2005 01:54 PM

Let me try to make my previous point more succinctly. The 'small l' liberatarians are also the 'fiscal conservatives'. As long as the Conservatives/GOP represent fiscally small gov't and socially 'big' gov't and the liberals/Dems represent fiscally big gov't and socially 'small' gov't, the fiscally conservative/socially liberal small l libertarians will split their vote between the parties and elections will remains close.

If the GOP comes to represent fiscally and socially big gov't and the D's represent fiscally big and socially small gov't, (and breaks free of its really kooky fringe) the fiscally conservative/socially liberal small l libertarian swing voters will start electing democrats.

Roughly a third of voters are conservatives, a third are liberals/socialists and about a third are are the 'fiscal conservative, social liberals'. Currently the first has the GOP, the second has the D's and the third splits its votes. That may change.

Posted by: Blanknoone at April 1, 2005 01:59 PM

I don't think there is a way out of the trap. Democracy cannot survive the result of allowing politicians to buy votes with the taxpayers' own money.

With our current media and the spending and influence powerful lobbyists, like the AARP, opposing any responsible reform of Social Security and other entitlements, I think we are doomed to dither until the government has no way out except to borrow more and more. At some point, we'll have to raise taxes just to pay the interest. I don't expect to be here when it happens, but unless the people themselves figure this out and insist on reform instead of worrying about themselves ahead of everything else, I'm afraid this could destabilize everything.

Posted by: AST at April 1, 2005 02:17 PM

AST,
Maybe we are doomed to dither, but Bush is pushing reform of SS, and has been for it all along. If it's a fight between him and AARP/Democrats, I think you should be giving him your whole-hearted support (Maybe you are, I don't know.)

And if Bush fails in that reform it will probably be because these libertarians sat on the sidelines and sneered and carped and whined, but did nothing constructive. What they could do is support parts of the Bush agenda they like, and deliver a lot of votes, and then ask for influence. Instead they want influence in the Party first, and then maybe they will decide to help out if their nostrils are not offended by too much ickiness. Phooey.

My guess is that the Republican majority will continue to grow, and libertarians will be increasingly marginal .

Posted by: John Weidner at April 1, 2005 02:35 PM

Blanknoone,

Ok, so you say that if the R's become the party of big government and big morals, the small-L libetarians will switch to the D's: the party of big government and no morals.

I wonder if you figute in the calculation the fact that even if the R's become a party of "big" government (which I don't think will happen), the Democrats will always be qualitatively worse on the matter by a large degree. And is that gigantic degree enough to offset the fact that the Republicans happen to believe in morals while the democrats do not? (I'm simplifying here, for the sake of argument. Obviously, it can be argued that the Democrats have morals, but that they don't want government to protect them.)

Furthermore, I think that this problem of the libetarians with morality is really a problem with the nature of our Constitutional system. The Declaration of Independence says that government is instituted to protect life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Most of that is pure libetarianism, except of course for the protection of LIFE, which gets into the debate about the culture of life v. culture of death (and thus abortion). Furthermore, the history of slavery and the 14th Amendment's federalization of the protection of civil rights is a factor that cannot be ignored either. Although Barry Goldwater argued against the civil rights act on libetarian grounds and that it wasn't a good idea, there is no doubt it clearly was constitutional. Libetarians, small-L libetarians, have no way of explaining how society would deal with those issues. It's not a good answer to say that racist businesses will fail, because that presupposes a society that takes no direction from its laws. And the fact is, society does take moral direction from its laws. Even an analysis of Prohibition will show that in places where the law was enforced, people did not violate it (they only violated it in instances where the government had no respect for its own law, thus encouraging a culture of disrespect). I'd argue that the Civil Rights Act also had a profound effect in transforming social mores. But even if you dispute this, you have an obligation to describe the difference between legislating morality in areas like abortion or euthenasia, and legislating morality in areas like the Civil Rights Act.

When I hear statements saying: "I do have a very fundamental and viceral hatred when it comes to anyone who thinks government should even acknowledge religion," it only confirms for me that libetarianism is a philosophy for religious bigots. Such a person would have to spit upon George Washington and a lot of the Founding Fathers, as well as Abraham Lincoln and nearly every other President who's acknowledged his humility before God. And it would ignore the intellectual foundations of the idea behind individual rights and the source of those "inalienable" rights, and the idea that government was instutited to secure them. It also insults your small-L libetarian "fiscal conservatives" with a broad smear by association, since I understand that one can be very religious and also fiscally conservative. But you do yourself no favors by associating with such lunacy.

Posted by: Sydney Carton at April 1, 2005 02:43 PM

what's the thinking behind this post? i think the b.s. has been called out by another commenter: you can't shrink goverment by growing it.

and yet that's exactly what you trot out here. 'just give us a chance' while calling the tcs blog entry an 'attack'.

says more about you than it does bill quick or ryan sager (you're runnin scared).

Posted by: dr at April 1, 2005 02:46 PM

We *did* throw you the votes. Held our noses while McCain was busy gutting the first amendment... etcetera, etc.

But note the difference in tone: libertarians/fiscal conservatives feel betrayed.
Conservatives couldn't give a rat's ass.

So, John, why should I vote for your team in four years, if outright disdain is the best you can offer a political ally? If you really do agree with Locke, why should we bother with you?

Posted by: Russ at April 1, 2005 03:20 PM

Russ, I didn't offer disdain; my point is that your arguments are ignoring what Bush is really doing. Maybe it's "disdain" to complain that you are sitting on the sidelines and sneering.

Perhaps I'm old-fashinoned, but I think you are either a member of a group or you are not. If you are NOT a member of the Republican Party, then you have no right to complain about being "betrayed." You are a free agent and no loyalty is owed to you or by you.

If you ARE a member, then you have no right to sit on the sidelines or adopt an attitude of "I'm going to take my marbles and go home." You should work for the party AND fight for a change of direction.

Posted by: John Weidner at April 1, 2005 03:37 PM

Sydney,

1. I did not make the quote you used. I know you didn't say I did, but you used it in a post addressed to me and I want to clarify for all involved.

2. Your point on morals is quite revealing. Where the so-cons and 'l''s disagree is not whether or not to be moral. The simple fact is that I don't believe the federal government should (or really can effectively) legislate morals...any morals. And countrary to spitting on the founding fathers, I rather think they would agree with me. And quite frankly, keeping the federal gov't out of it, is a moral position.

3. Which leads to my point. If both R's and D's are going for big gov't, if I can't keep the gov't out of my wallet, I'm going to at least try to keep it out of my private life.

4. Your idea that the 'l''s have no place else to go because the D's will always be worse is quite frankly wrong and dependent on the D's continuing to put up essentially socialists. I think after '06 and before '08 you will see a big change in the D candidates. They are not going to put up another north eastern socialist....or at the very least they will pay a lot of lip service to being moderate. If I'm gonna get screwed by both parties, I'm gonna go with the one who at least whispers sweet nothings in my ear.

You will either see a resurgence of the power of D moderates, or you will see a D crackup with a third party. The R's will win the first round against a broken D party and a third party. You will lose the second round if there is one.

5. As a small l libertarian, I generally voted a straight R ticket on the grounds that the R's were the lesser of two evils. If 'compassionate (read big spending) conservatives' stay in control of the R party, my objective will be to ensure that the executive and legislative branches are split as the most effective means of limiting the gov't.

Posted by: Blanknoone at April 1, 2005 03:51 PM

John,

What you are missing is the difference between party and ideology. Conservatives and 'l' libertarians had different ideologies, but shared a party. We had worked together. Neither got everything they wanted, but we each got something worthwhile.

That Calculus seems to be changing. We worked together to deliver control over all branches of the fed gov't to the party. The So-Con side of the house is largely getting what it wanted out of this. The 'l' side ain't got nothin'.

The ideology is the principles someone holds. You don't compromise those. The party is the political vehicle and invariably does require compromise. (which is why the Libertarian Party, and the Conservative Party for that matter, are pointless). But given the success of our combined efforts at the party level, we are getting no satisfaction of our ideological requirements. So if the party does not advance our ideology at all what is the point of supporting the party? I'm willing to compromise, but I'm not willing to surrender everything I hold dear. And right now, that is what the R party looks like to me.

You're right about fighting from within the organization. That is what I am trying to do right now. But make no mistake, only the most dedicated and politically active are involved in that. For every 'l' involved in party politics, there are hundreds who just vote. And next time, they'll vote differently.

Posted by: Blanknoone at April 1, 2005 04:05 PM

Okay, John. I can get behind that. As I've said before, I hope it works. And, there's truth in advertising, since the R's electoral rhetoric offered nothing whatsoever in the way of minarchy -- one of the very notable shifts in Bush's rhetoric.

(L)ibertarians have no room whatsoever to bitch about the Reagan coalition: they're not in it, and never were. Steady Republican voters who believe that government should be shrunk, on the other hand, is something else. Guys like me who are (l)ibertarians but have consistently voted Republican since the 80s... and were originally called Reagan Democrats... would like to know we didn't hop parties in vain.

Nice thread.

Posted by: Russ at April 1, 2005 04:08 PM

As an aside, this is why left-libertarians dominate the (L) Party... as opposed to right-libertarians, who have so much in common with conservatives (half the ideology). The (L) are an offshoot of the Democratic implosion in '68, not the folks who woke up and believed when Reagan said it was Morning in America...

Posted by: Russ at April 1, 2005 04:18 PM

"I hope it works."

You and me both brother. I could be all wrong, and watch the Ownership stuff fizzle out. Right now I think it's going to keep growing, and you will find that you didn't lose as much as you feared by supporting Republicans. But it's politics, so all could go awry.

And Blanknoone, you are right about the importance of the distinction between party and ideology.

And I expect to still be blogging in 2008, so you can all come back and say "I told you so" if I'm wrong...

Posted by: John Weidner at April 1, 2005 04:45 PM

"If you ARE a member, then you have no right to sit on the sidelines or adopt an attitude of "I'm going to take my marbles and go home." You should work for the party AND fight for a change of direction."

That's bullshit. Worse, it's sophomoric bullshit.

Being a member of a party is EXACTLY what gives you the right to sit on the sidelines or to take you marbles and go home. Votes are the only political capital, and there's only one way to spend them - threatening to go home.

In a way, this is just like diplomacy. All diplomacy is, ultimately, predicated on the threat of war. Politics is predicated on the threat of voting for the other guy. And, as a party/candidate, you either take that threat seriously or you don't.

It is obvious that Bush doesn't take the threat of the fiscal conservatives leaving very seriously. He's right, of course; as things stand, we have nowhere else to go, which is why we're sitting on the sidelines carping. He may get a rude awakening if the Dem's ever decide to come back to the middle.

That said, why on earth would fiscal conservatives ever work FOR a party which seems to have no control over its purse strings? Like many others here, I call bullshit on your Ownership Society - you don't decrease government by increasing government, whatever your theory may say about decreasing demand.

Posted by: Jason at April 1, 2005 05:08 PM

Meh. That last paragraph of my previous post came out overly harsh. I'm with you in that I sincerely hope that this Ownership Society thing pans out. I just don't have much faith in it. The theory looks good. The practice; well, that looks more like politics as usual.

Posted by: Jason at April 1, 2005 05:15 PM

I have no particular problem with Bush's Ownership Society, and I have no use at all for the Libertarian Party. But the surest way for the Republican Party to lose its current majority is for the social conservatives to start baring their fangs at us libertarians. I suggest that the next time one of y'all get the urge to start one of your smug posts about libertarian whining, you first say this out loud:

"President Hillary Clinton".

We know you outnumber us. We know that you therefore get to set 98% of the agenda. But if you think you can start treating us the way the Democrats treat blacks - as a captive bloc to be condescended to in election years and ignored otherwise - you may just learn that we are numerous enough to tip the elections back to the Dems. I'd sooner swallow my own tongue than see the libs take back power; but if my supposed allies decide I'm some sort of freak sideshow, why should I play along?

Posted by: Al Jackson at April 1, 2005 05:28 PM

"I call bullshit" just emphasizes that you haven't made any rational case against it.

And your criticism that I'm sophomoric is sophomoric. For someone inside a party thare are many forms of political capital. Such as contributions of time or money or skills. Such as rational argument, and personal influence based on ties of aquaintenceship or proximity. I have (in a very very small way) influence in the party because I know a few people and belong to groups.

It's the person outside who has only the power of withholding a vote. You are defining yourself as being outside.

Ooop, I just noticed your additional comment. So now this comment is overly harsh--take it as modified accordingly.

Maybe because I'm historically-minded and come from a Republican background, I think of my party as the party of Lincoln and TR and Reagan. Long-term thing, not just a convenience. But maybe that's also because the party's kind of on my wavelength right now. I was a lot less passionate under Bush#1

Posted by: John Weidner at April 1, 2005 05:29 PM

Smart, ambitious young small-l libertarians should do one thing, in short order:

Run to the Democratic party. As fast as you possibly can. Take everyone you know who's smart and ambitious with you that you can.

Why? The Republican party is *entrenched*. They owe favors to everyone. They're the fat cats. They're not Mr. Smith Goes to Washington; As Bill Maher once said, "We need a Mr. Smith to fuck with *them*".

The Democratic party, on the other hand, is facing a dire shortage of people to give it ideas, candidates, direction, and a future.

If you're talented and you want room for advancement and room to get your voices heard on the issues and ideas that matter, where do you go?

This thread gives you the answer. You go to the Republicans, and they don't give a rat's ass about you. "They got theirs".

You go to the Democrats, and who are they going to listen to? The old, stagnant unions, and other fragmentary interest groups that are shrinking with time, or the new, fresh voices and ideas that can recapture the moderate center and reinvigorate the party?

If you care about America more than a political party and you want to work actively for small-l-libertarian values, you should be in the Democratic party. Simple as that.

Posted by: Joe at April 1, 2005 05:33 PM

Michael. You missed the point. That is, I was talking about the liberals' tactic of accusing proponents of ideas they can't manage on the merits of supporting theocracy.
Liberals use accusations of racism for the same purpose.
I am aware that certain clergymen starved for attention, I guess, do stupid things.
That's a different issue, as you ought to know.
Are you under the impression I'm interested in your benefit of the doubt?

Posted by: Richard Aubrey at April 1, 2005 05:33 PM

"It's the person outside who has only the power of withholding a vote. You are defining yourself as being outside."

Maybe I am. I certainly feel outside.

The thing is, contributions of time, money, skills, and rational argument are fine and dandy when they work. It's when they don't that we have a problem, and they don't seem to be working. And, it's when those contributions are given - as they have been - and then fail to pan out that we feel betrayed by the party we helped into power.

As things stand, fiscal conservatives have no power because they have no alternative. The choice is between social conservatism and socialism, and unless the religious right really does start making moves towards theocracy (or the Dems come to their senses) we're not going anywhere. And that situation is self-evident, because the Republicans have stopped even making noises about cutting the budget.

As the old hat goes, it takes two to tango. If being inside the party implies those contributions of time, skill, and money, then so does it also imply that those contributions are not taken for granted. Otherwise, we're back to square one - the threat that I'll take my vote and go home.

As for not making a case against the Ownership Society (in its current incarnation, at least), better voices than mine have done so, and there's no use repeating. Ken (posting at 1:54 pm) I think made the best point here, so call my argument his.

Posted by: Jason at April 1, 2005 06:17 PM

I personally love to see this inter-party bickering, even though at times I like to fancy myself somewhat of a "l"ibertarian and therefore take up with Michael Mealling and blanknoone on a lot of points. I want nothing more, in the way of the political landscape's future, than the crack-up of both R and D, and the formation of a new home for the "l" -- the fiscally responsible, socially STAY OUT OF MY PERSONAL BIZNESS. I am without a home even more than they are at the moment, since I find truck with various loony left tenets as well as with the aforementioned swing-voting, rational moderates.

I've tried, and in fairness, will likely try again, to engage the arguments put forth by So-Cons, instead of merely writing them off as "stupid" -- I know that they are not, all. Ours is a fundamental difference, though, and thus one not easily negotiated through rational debate. The difference is illustrated simply as one between you, who would rather cast your fate (and mine, to boot) at the feet of some Great Other; and I, who, being agnostic and all, still finds brotherhood with believers who insist on us Humans making a go of civilising ourselves in spite of an Other (not -because- of Him) -- even suggesting that He would want it that way.

The act of compromise must be based on at least some degree of trust (mitigated by proper wariness); and I don't trust -at all- that So-Cons are able to avoid reaching beyond consciousness for their justifications (and therefore I'm not saying they'll betray me on purpose, but that it's just an ingrained, robotic action, and, come to think of it, -that's- what's often mistaken for "stupidity").

Posted by: August West at April 1, 2005 06:28 PM

I dare to suggest that George W. Bush has done more in the last 6 years toward the eventual reduction of government than radical, all-or-nothing libertariansim has done for those same goals in the last 60.

Doesn't what actually works count?

Posted by: Bithead at April 1, 2005 07:09 PM

I'm not a Christian, I'm not particularly religious in fact though I believe in God. However, I find this libertarian barking at religious conservatives to be nothing more than bigotry.

Posted by: Bob at April 1, 2005 07:56 PM

As a Christian libertarian, I don't think that a movement busily replacing Jesus with Caesar can be either religious or right.

Posted by: David Johnson at April 1, 2005 10:31 PM

I am a fiscal conservative hawk/social liberal which I guess makes me a small (l) libertarian. While I am not Christian I am very friendly to Christianity. While I don't agree with them on everything I am not afraid of the religious in this country. I just don't believe in legislating morality to the extent that some do.

I voted for Bush this last time because I agree with his foriegn policy and that is, at the moment the largest issue. When NCLB was first being discussed there was talk of a voucher option, at least if the public school failed badly enough. I considered that an acceptable compromise. As far as I can tell, when that was left out, the program became little more than another government spending program that further interfered in local school control. As far as I know I don't have MSAs available to me nor do I know anyone who does. Wasn't that a small pilot plan? How will it grow enough to get a real market in health care going again? It does not look like Bush will be able to get effective personal accounts through as part of Social Security. I expect a similiar compromise that eliminates what I see as the virtues of the proposal and keeps bad. I would love to be proved wrong but I don't see it. Bush signed the heinous campaign finance "reform" bill. I don't believe that congress would have over rode a veto nor do I believe that would have cost him the election. He was willing to sign the assualt weapons ban. I know the story about that not meaning anything because it would not get out of the house. However I suspect that was the same strategy as the one for campaign finance "reform" and look where that went. All I see is rhetoric about an ownership society and no real results. However I do see tremendous results in getting increased domestic spending. Given all that, Bithead, please explain how "George W. Bush has done more in the last 6 years toward the eventual reduction of government ...". From where I sit I don't see it. I hope you can convince me that I am wrong.

In 2008 if foreign policy is still the biggest issue, which it probably will be, and if the GOP candidate is clearly better on that then the Dem, I'll vote GOP again. On the other hand, if the Dems put up someone who seems reasonable on foreign policy, is better on social freedom, and isn't much worse on spending than the GOP. please explain why I should not vote for them?

The problem is that at least for the next presidential election the Dems will still act like socialists who don't have a clue about how to deal with foreign policy. They will be driving me to the GOP. The GOP will not be attracting me. This situation may not continue.

Posted by: Tony Lekas at April 1, 2005 10:34 PM

Instapundit's spin on this discussion is remarkably childish. His suggestion that social consevatives are reaping scorn on libetarians underscores what was written on an earleir-linked blog by Instapundit regarding this issue: that libetarians are smarting for a fight with social conservatives. How else can Instapundit characterize a thread in which one person said he had a "viceral hatred" for anyone in government who ACKNOWLEDGES religion, let alone endorses it.

Excuse me, but Instapundit betrays the same bigotry that many libetarians have towards religion. Being skeptical about government officers having faith is one thing, but outright hostility is rightly called bigotry. And the major libetarians promoting this: Bill Quick, Jeff Jarvis, and now Glenn Reynolds, are quickly devolving into licentious assholes who mock social conservativsm as "theocracy." My response to him is this: I WILL heap scorn on a bigot, for he rightly deserves it. I will maintain an alliance with someone who can peacefully disagree. But screw you if you suggest that morals legislation is merely heaping scorn on a person (especially since most laws, from securities fraud to stalking to murder, have their source in "morality", and so it's a stupid complaint that won't pass with me).

Glenn, here's a frickin' clue for you: perhaps it's the libetarins "heaping scorn" when they say they have a "viceral hatred" for acknowledgement of religon. Ever consider than, pisan?

Posted by: Sydney Carton at April 1, 2005 11:01 PM

From Matthew Yglesias, a proud Harvard Liberal:

"Certainly my prediction would be that over my lifetime big government is going to get much bigger. Right now the Republican unwillingness to have any taxes or right their big spending laws in a way that makes sense is sort of wrecking the country, but someday the Democrats will win again and find it much easier to fix and expand programs the GOP has already put in place than they ever would have to create these things in the first place. "

Oh yeah, this ownership society is gonna work out real well, I promise. It's not a fundamental paradigm shift. It's a cute name so that you don't see it for what it really is. It's been a favorite trick of this administration.

Personal Accounts
Private Accounts
Culture of Life
Freedom Fries
Homeland Security
No Child Left Behind
Mission Accomplished

When I put money into MY 401k, that's money I own.
When you put your money into a government "personal account"... Well.. yeah.
Or when I pay asstons of medicare taxes and get my own little "personal drug card".

It would be accurate to call it a "Leasing Society" program.

Posted by: bago at April 1, 2005 11:28 PM

Real ownership presumes that the owner accepts responsibility for his actions.

If I own myself, then why would the government care about what I would choose to put in my body?
Now, if I were leasing myself from the government for the price of my taxes, then the actual owner WOULD have a legitimate interest in regulating what I would put into "my" body.

If I were leased, then there would be a legitimate interest controlling what I would watch on television, and cable.

If I were leased, then the government would have a legitimate interest in usupring traditional marriage co-ownership and interfere with my spouses wishes.

Heeey, wait a second. Those people that considered everything owned by the government, especially people. What were they called again?

Posted by: bago at April 1, 2005 11:56 PM

Count me as another small-l libertarian -- actually, libertarian/conservative -- who is, at the moment at least, completely disgusted with the Republican Party and the conservative media. Fox News, IMO, has given itself a huge black eye for providing a platform for blatant misinformation spread by Schiavo's so-called supporters, including the nutjob nurse who claimed that Michael Schiavo was abusive to his wife in 1995-96 but waited until 2003 to report it (and who also claimed that her notes indicating that Terri Schiavo was responsive and conscious were regularly deleted from the charts as soon as she ended her shift). I wonder if Sean Hannity will ever apologize for repeatedly touting a quack (William Hammesfahr) as a Nobel Prize Nominee.

When conservatives tell me that "life" trumps the principles of federalism and limited government, I am very, very afraid. What next? Is it okay for the government to force insurance companies to bankroll experimental treatments for the terminally ill on the grounds that it's about "life"? Is the federal government going to poke its nose in every case where life-prolonging measures are terminated? The hypocrisy in the Schiavo case is galling -- there are thousands of similar cases around the country every year that don't become a big right-to life cause.

To comment on a few things in this thread...

Sydney Carton says:
When I hear statements saying: "I do have a very fundamental and viceral hatred when it comes to anyone who thinks government should even acknowledge religion," it only confirms for me that libetarianism is a philosophy for religious bigots.

Well, I cringe at that statement as well. But why would you generalize from this comment to all libertarians? How would you feel if a libertarian said, "When I read that some people have sent Glenn Reynolds emails saying that they hope his wife suffers the same fate as Terri Schiavo, it only confirms for me that Christianity is a religion of hate and bigotry"?

You ask how federal intervention in issues such as abortion or euthanasia (or, to be more precise, the continuation of life-prolonging procedures) is different from the Civil Rights act. One obvious difference is that the social conservatives' moral issues have to do with people's personal lives, not services they provide in the marketplace. The Civil Rights Act does not create penalties for (for instance) refusing to invite black people to a private party at one's home.

I can tell you one thing: it makes me furious to think that the government could force me to watch someone I love linger in a persistent vegetative state for years. It makes me furious to think that the government could force me to be kept "alive" in such a state. And by the way, let's not pretend that this applies narrowly to cases in which the person has not made their wishes clear and there is disagreement in the family. That's what allowed the "pro-life" forces to exploit the Schiavo case, but if you look at the rhetoric coming from social conservative ideologues (Robert George in National Review, Eric Cohen in The Weekly Standard), it's pretty clear that they're aiming much higher. They're completely opposed to living wills. They argue that as a rational and competent person you have no standing to make decisions about what you would want if you became incompetent, that you have no right to refuse the care to which every incompetent person is entitled. A lot of the people who protested in front of the hospice have the same mindset. I heard one protester say, "It's not about what Terri would have wanted, it's about what God wants."

You really don't need to be a "Godophobe" to be appalled.

For the record, I have written quite a bit in defense of religious expression. I have criticized the notion that vouchers can be used for secular schools but not for religious ones, or that it's a violation of the Establishment Clause if a high school valedictorian is permitted to mention Jesus in her speech. I think ACLU crusades to extirpate from public space religious references like that cross on the LA County seal.

But I don't want anything to do with a party that wants to relegate non-religious people like me to second-class citizenship, and to use the power of the state to impose someone's idea of "what God wants" on society.

Richard Aubrey says:

That is, I was talking about the liberals' tactic of accusing proponents of ideas they can't manage on the merits of supporting theocracy.
Liberals use accusations of racism for the same purpose.

Actually, I would make a different analogy to accusations of racism.

Conservatives cry "religious bigotry" and "Godophobia" to silence critics of the faith-based policies of the right the same way liberals cry racism to silence critics of the race-based policies of the left.

Posted by: Cathy Young at April 2, 2005 01:42 AM

I dare to suggest that George W. Bush has done more in the last 6 years toward the eventual reduction of government than radical, all-or-nothing libertariansim has done for those same goals in the last 60.

Drastically expanded size of old-age entitlements? Check.
More intimately involved the federal government in local schools? Check.
Reconstructed rotten edifice of agricultural subsidies? Check.
Cranked up tariffs on legitimate businesses for daring to ship goods in from foreign countries? Check.
Drastically expanded federal police power? Check.
Blurred judicial/legislative and state/federal authority? Check.
Blew the "defence" budget wide open? Check.

What the fuck have you been doing for 4.5 years?

- Josh

Posted by: Wild Pegasus at April 2, 2005 03:17 AM

Sydney Carton: just read your last post and wanted to add something.

Amazing how, to quote a well-known religious text, people see the speck in their brother's eye and don't notice the mote in their own.

Some of the conservatives in this thread have been referring to libertarians as making "moronic arguments," being "full of shit," and engaging in "the Great Libertarian Bitch."

You yourself joined this thread with these lovely sentiments:

I'm going to state right off the bat, I think libetarians are idiots. .... That libetarians are complaining, at this point, is so ridiculous that I'm tempted to say: to hell with you, we social conservatives will do it on our own. ... THIS is where the so-called "alliance" should begin, but if libetarians are too dumb to realize it, then enjoy the frickin' wilderness.

Then, one libertarian posting in this thread admits to a "visceral hatred" toward those who think the government should acknowledge religion (which I agree is an extreme sentiment), and then you cry victim and claim that libertarians in this thread are "heaping scorn" on the conservatives?

The fact is that in the Terri Schiavo debate, conservatives have treated disagrement (even in their own ranks!) with stunning intolerance and hate. Epithets like "pro-death" are only the beginning. Rev. Donald Sensing, a conservative Christian minister, has been told he's going to hell for defying the party line. Glenn has been dubbed "Instapilate" and accused of conducting a campaign to kill Terri Schiavo (and that's not to mention the emails wishing Terri's fate upon his wife). Excuse me if libertarians haven't always turned the other cheek.

Posted by: Cathy Young at April 2, 2005 03:25 AM

Sydney Carlton:
(especially since most laws, from securities fraud to stalking to murder, have their source in "morality", and so it's a stupid complaint that won't pass with me).

The Code of Hammurabi (e.g.) may well have been based in "morality," but the idea gets skewed by Christian conservatives into their belief that our civic, mundane, secular laws are based in THEIR "morality." And that is a twist that I cannot accommodate. I will defy it peacefully, but adamantly and continually.

Posted by: August West at April 2, 2005 04:46 AM

"The fact is that in the Terri Schiavo debate, conservatives have treated disagrement (even in their own ranks!) with stunning intolerance and hate . . . Glenn has been dubbed "Instapilate" . . ."

I had a (cordial) e-mail exchange with Glenn on the subject, where he described the level of acrimony as "astounding." Still, generalizing based on a few idiots is faulty, as you pointed out above. I'd also suggest there was a very legitimate case to be made for protecting Schiavo's civil rights, and for requiring more stringent safeguards than for a more clear-cut case.

"The Code of Hammurabi (e.g.) may well have been based in "morality," but the idea gets skewed by Christian conservatives . . ."

Glenn also had an intelligent Guardian column a while back that covered some of this ground. He asserts that religious beliefs are pervasive, driving both left and right--the left just seems less aware. For example:

And, actually, the roots of this do-goodism are ultimately in New England Puritanism, which had many characteristics associated with today's left. Among them were a hostility to wealth - illustrated by sumptuary laws . . .

And, of course, the bases of US government repeatedly cite divine authority, whether for being "created equal" or as a source for "inalienable rights." Disliking a particular brand is reasonable, trying to stamp out the influence entirely is like resisting the Borg.

Posted by: Cecil Turner at April 2, 2005 06:44 AM

Libby, Randy and Fundy.

My goodness. How quickly this kind of essay can create a shouting match with Libbys and Randies against the Fundies.

Yes, I thought that it would be appropriate to create pet names for those who are either afraid of Christians or social conservatives. Why not adopt “Libby” or “Randy” for the Libertarians/Randians who are in a snit about Republicans and Christians?

Remember the Calvin & Hobbes comic strip? A true work of genius. Some of my favorite story lines involved the monsters that inhabited Calvin’s closet and lived under his bed.

When Libbies and Randies go into their bedrooms they always check for the Fundy police, knowing that The Christian Coalition stays awake at night working on plans to arrest them once it has control of the government. Oh, it does? Never mind.

Or when Libbys and Randys discuss the freedom and dignity (even the euphoria) that takes over when a person is dying of thirst. Are they implying that that is exactly how they would wish to die should they become too sick? They object to the intrusion of government into this “intensely private family affair.” Are they conveniently forgetting that Judge Greer is part of the government? That he ordered Terri’s life should be ended, and that armed agents of the government – in the form of police – stood guard to insure that private individuals did not interfere with this government ordered death?

I agree with Sydney Carton when he alludes to the fact that there is both a degree of contempt for people of faith as well as a feigned or actual irrational fear of Christians.

Where this derives, I don’t know, but its eruption in the public sphere is a recent phenomenon. And frankly, as a Christian, it scares me. And my fear is somewhat more rational, being born in occupied Europe during World War II, I have studied the history of religious and ethnic bigotry with more than a casual interest. Before it became a reality, the Holocaust was an idea.

In the beginning, was the word.

Posted by: Moneyrunner at April 2, 2005 08:02 AM

"Before it became a reality, the Holocaust was an idea."

Godwin's Law. You lose.

Posted by: Jason at April 2, 2005 09:39 AM

Cecil Turner:

I had a (cordial) e-mail exchange with Glenn on the subject, where he described the level of acrimony as "astounding." Still, generalizing based on a few idiots is faulty, as you pointed out above.

Yes, it is. But the fact is, very extreme rhetoric has come from people whom one wouldn't normally write off as fringe idiots. See, e.g., Peggy Noonan, asserting that people who support the Florida court's decision must be "in love with death." Or Jonathan Last, accusing Glenn and others of a morbid eagerness to bury Terri. Or The National Review's Jay Nordlinger, invoking Nazis. Why is it an outrage when Ward Churchill compares ordinary Americans to Nazis but acceptable when the right does it?

Or when Libbys and Randys discuss the freedom and dignity (even the euphoria) that takes over when a person is dying of thirst. Are they implying that that is exactly how they would wish to die should they become too sick?

See, one reason I find discussions of this case so frustrating is this kind of emotional and inaccurate language.

All available evidence shows that Terri Schiavo is in a persistent vegetative state. (And no, there really isn't much of a legitimate medical debate on this issue. See my post here with lots of links.

If you're in a persistent vegetative state, there is no consciousness, and hence no "thirst." The accurate word is dehydration.

And "too sick" is much too soft a euphemism for vegetative.

Furthermore: quite a few people specify in their living wills that they do not want to receive artificial nutrition and hydration should they become comatose or permanently vegetative. So yes, people do indicate that "this is exactly how they would wish to die." By the way, this is not considered assisted suicide and is legal, as far as I know, in every state.

Even some of the people who screamed murder in the Schiavo case said that it would be different if her wishes were clearly known. But that's absurd if you think about it. You can't be murdered even with your advance consent.

Posted by: Cathy Young at April 2, 2005 12:18 PM

Well, I'll give you this. The concept of the "Ownership Society" sounds good.

The actuality of the significant across the board increase in Government spending... not so good.

So, what you ask is that I be patient, because Bush really means to do what he says, not what he has been approving regarding Government spending since his initial election...

The only way we can get to school choice is NCLB, so we have to spend 50% (FIFTY PERCENT) more to "reduce demand before reducing Government supply". Step 1: Increase Government Spending drastically, across the board, increased tariffs, etc.

Step 3: Smaller Government and Ownership Based Society.

Sorry, I have to suspect that Step 2 is either unreachable, or "stealing underpants"... If you have a brilliant "Step 2" I apparantly missed it in the bullet points between increaed Federal Funding of Prescription Drugs and increased Tariffs on Steel, Hardwood, etc.

Has Bush done some good? Sure, I'm not claiming he's the worst ever, just not what I had hoped for/expected. Didn't Clinton pass the Welfare Reform bill? I'd have to say the concept of "look at the 15% you got, not the 85% that went against your principles" isn't a good compromise...

Posted by: Gekkobear at April 2, 2005 12:23 PM

The actuality of the significant across the board increase in Government spending... not so good.

So how much did you pay for the cave you've been living in since 2000?

Perhaps it missed your attention that we've been dealintg with a little problem. Buildings missing in lower Manhattan and EVERYTHING... Why, they're still picking bits of plane out of one wing of the Pentegon as we speak!

You may want to spend some time updating yourself as to what the money is needed for.

Even without this small issue, every government for the last 80 years has given us increases. Did you think that was going to turn around in one term of a President?

(Shake of the head)

Posted by: Biithead at April 2, 2005 03:32 PM

The fact is that in the Terri Schiavo debate, conservatives have treated disagrement (even in their own ranks!) with stunning intolerance and hate.

Andrew Sullivan said that "sane, moderate, thoughtful people" agreed with him. Those who disagreed with him are "theocrats." Sullivan called for a "purge" of religious conservatives. Does this promote tolerance and mutual respect?

Posted by: LesLein at April 2, 2005 05:16 PM

What Sullivan said is that "religious zealotry" must purged from conservatism. That's not necessarily a reference to all religious conservatism; I assume it means the likes of Randall Terry. Given the days of hysteria that preceded Sullivan's comment, including calls for open disregard for the law, I don't think it was particularly out of bounds. Tolerance is a two-way street. I don't owe any respect or tolerance to those who call their opponents Nazis.

Posted by: Cathy Young at April 2, 2005 05:56 PM

No, Sullivan intends thta conservatives that dare disagree with HIM be removed. Of course we should recall, he claims to have voted for John Kerry. Thereby, perhaps we have cause to question his conservative credentials.

Posted by: Bithead at April 2, 2005 07:24 PM

Actually, I believe Andrew Sullivan is not a US citizen, so he can't have voted or claim to have voted for anyone. He did endorse Kerry, toward the end of the campaign. And where's the proof that he wants to "remove" everyone who disagrees with him? Having said that, I do think that over the past couple of years AS has occasionally lapsed into some fairly extreme rhetoric (as when he argued a couple of months ago that homophobia was the main reason for the rejection of the claim that Lincoln was gay -- a claim based on a book that even most liberal reviewers condemned as incredibly shoddy).

Let me point out that while the SoCons are not calling for a "purge" of more libertarian Republicans from the party, they've made it very clear that no socially liberal Republican will be allowed into the Party's national leadership.

Posted by: Cathy Young at April 2, 2005 08:58 PM

'Before it became a reality, the Holocaust was an idea.'

"Godwin's Law. You lose"

No, you lose.

Forced government euthanasia WAS the first step of the Nazis towards dehumanizing their victims. Invoking "Godwin's Law" in this context just shows your inability to think either historically or in principles.

I have a deep LIBERTARIAN objection to people being dehumanized and put to death on the basis of hearsay evidence that in a sane policy context wouldn't be used to crush a crippled cockroach.

What that has to do with Bush's mercantilist expansion of the government, or some "social conservatives" or "pragmatic libertarians" being unable to see that the Bush baby is going to radically EXPAND government and its power while lulling them to sleep with his "ownership society" hot air is beyond my ken, but then I thought Clinton was transparently phony as well.

Posted by: Ernest Brown at April 2, 2005 09:14 PM

Ok, yea, I regret saying that "visceral hatred" comment. I hope you'll accept my apology. If not then that's probably my fault. It was over the top. I let some of the "leave! and good riddance" comments get to me.

The point I keep trying to make and I guess I'm doing a bad job of it is this:

Being where I'm from and where I live I've known and am related to many people who call themselves fundamentalist evangelical Christians. And they're also active Republicans. They're hot button topics are abortion, school prayer, gay marriage, and the war. Not a single economic issue among them. They're actually against Social Security reform.

So I ask them about school prayer and why they want it (i.e. why prayer in schools and not prayer in Dairy Queens, or banks, or other random buildings). And the answer is the government took God out of the schools so we're putting it back in. The answer is never "the government nationalized the schools so we want to take the government out of the schools" (I've donated to the Alliance for the Separation of School and State, have you?). The default answer is always "we want control of the government so that we can make it work our way", its never one of "you and I have different opinions of religion so we're going to work to make the government small again so that different doesn't matter when it comes to who has control of the monopoly on force the government has".

And this isn't a critique of conservatism itself. Its a critique of the Republican Party that's actually in office. If the Party really is the party of small government then why isn't the first response to the courts rulling against Christian symbols in public places to scale back the amount of government owned public space? Why is the first response to prayer not being allowed in public schools the intense desire to repeal the First Ammendment and not to get the government out of the teaching job? (in other words, why an emergency Sunday session for Terry Shiavo but not a single one for vouchers?)

I look over the past 10 years (all the way back to the Repblican Revolution in the 90s) and the times that I see the Republican Party "going to the mat" its been about social issues, not economic ones. About the only exception is the tax cuts. Way more political capital has been spent on partial birth abortions, Terry Shiavo, and gay marriage than is being spent on Social Security reform or the Ownership Society.

And that's what makes me reticent about helping this party keep the power it has. It has become painfully apparent that many Republicans in the leadership and in Congress (federal and state) like the new found power they have. And given their history of only going to the mat for social issues, there is no evidence at all to suggest they won't opt for the same solutions as before.

I'm hoping someone can prove me wrong. Rhetoric alone won't do it. I'll need legislative proof before you'll get my vote next election. The only reason I voted for Bush this last time was the War on Terror. And if the Democrats nominate someone that has the street cred to suggest they will continue the policy of preemptive swamp draining, then I'll probably vote straight ticket Democrat just to show the GOP that social conservatives alone don't make a winning 'coalition'.

Posted by: Michael Mealling at April 2, 2005 09:43 PM

Ernest Brown:

I have a deep LIBERTARIAN objection to people being dehumanized and put to death on the basis of hearsay evidence that in a sane policy context wouldn't be used to crush a crippled cockroach.

I'm curious -- have you read the evidence in the case?

Posted by: Cathy Young at April 2, 2005 09:55 PM

Oh, and Michael, good post.

There are definitely people among the secular elites who harbor anti-religious prejudices. (A friend of mine who is in graduate school, and is not religious herself, told me recently that most of her professors simply won't entertain the idea that a serious Christian could be a serious scholar.) But the notion that anyone who criticizes "religious zealotry" is an anti-religious bigot is akin to the left-wing notion that anyone who criticizes radical feminists is a woman-hater, or that anyone who criticizes affirmative action is a racist.

Posted by: Cathy Young at April 2, 2005 10:22 PM

I believe that Sullivan is a US citizen.

Sullivan couldn't be too upset about "open disregard for the law." He cheered when San Francisco city officials broke the law to issue same-sex marriage licenses.

Posted by: LesLein at April 3, 2005 01:10 AM

Sullivan couldn't be too upset about "open disregard for the law." He cheered when San Francisco city officials broke the law to issue same-sex marriage licenses.

Good point. I do think that Sullivan has sometimes gone a bit off the deep end on some of those issues.

But you know what they say about two wrongs not making a right.

Posted by: Cathy Young at April 3, 2005 01:21 AM

The concept of limited government implies the enforcement of a similarly limited moral code. The defense of life, liberty and property sounds about right to me. Other moral codes should be relegated to the private sphere.

Posted by: Brett at April 3, 2005 09:02 AM

On November 6, 2004 Sullivan quoted an email: "As the election approached, I became deeply critical of you due to your decision to vote for Kerry." Sullivan's response didn't dispute this, so he must have voted for Kerry. Sullivan even said that Kerry was a conservative. He's made it plain that he'll destroy the conservative movement to get his way on same-sex marriage.

Libertarians need to win more elections before they can win more influence within the Republican party. In most Republican presidential nomination campaigns they don't run their own candidate for the nomination, or a delegate slate. Then at the convention they start hopeless platform fights to embarrass the majority of Republicans. The name-calling and threats of purges that Sullivan engages in will change few minds. Perhaps libertarians can start to increase their influence by running their own candidate for the nomination, emphasizing the parts of the libertarian agenda that appeals to conventional conservatives.

Posted by: LesLein at April 3, 2005 09:07 AM

Sullivan probably didn't bother to correct him because he didn't think it was that important. Or maybe he doesn't like to emphasize the fact that he's a non-citizen. When Sullivan endorsed Kerry, a number of conservative blogs including GayPatriot and BlogsforBush noted that he is not a US citizen.

Anyway, it's not all that relevant.

Libertarians need to win more elections before they can win more influence within the Republican party.

Libertarian-type Republicans have done very well in some pretty major elections (e.g. Arnold Schwarzenegger). However, the simple fact is that for the foreseeable future they are shut out of power in the Republican Party at the national level.

I don't think I could ever bring myself to vote for or endorse Kerry, but after the Schiavo debacle, I sure feel like never voting Republican again.

Posted by: Cathy Young at April 3, 2005 11:45 AM

Cathy,
I have enough of a long term view of politics to allow for voting for the other party just to show that my particular block's vote has to be earned and that it can and does understand how to payback being ignored. I'd definitely have to hold my nose the same way I did voting for Bush, though.

Posted by: Michael Mealling at April 3, 2005 12:32 PM

Sorry I missed this:

Given all that, Bithead, please explain how "George W. Bush has done more in the last 6 years toward the eventual reduction of government ...". From where I sit I don't see it. I hope you can convince me that I am wrong.

Perhaps you didn't read Wiedner's original post and skipped directly to the comments section? I thought the argument for my point laid out quite well in his.

Posted by: Biithead at April 3, 2005 02:55 PM

When conservatives tell me that "life" trumps the principles of federalism and limited government, I am very, very afraid.

Actually protection of life is part of federalism. The Declaration of Independence is one of the Organic Laws of the United States. The first right it mentions is the right to life.

The 14th Amendment to the Constitution prohibits states from taking life without due process. Its last sentence makes Congress the amendment's enforcer. Congress did a last minute rush job in the Schiavo case. It may have been mistaken, but it acted within its power.

Convicted murderers use the Federal judiciary to delay their executions, often for decades. I look forward to seeing what libertarians do to clear up death row.

-------------

If there's any misunderstanding about Sullivan's citizenship, he could have fixed it by correcting his emailer.

Posted by: LesLein at April 3, 2005 04:13 PM

Just to amend Bithead's comment (3 up from this), my take would be not that "George W. Bush has done more in the last 6 years toward the eventual reduction of government " but rather that he has STARTED things that, IF THEY WORK, will lead to the reduction of government.

He certainly hasn't reduced gov yet, but things are cooking that seem to me to be worth respectful consideration....

Posted by: John Weidner at April 3, 2005 04:19 PM

Cathy,

Yes, especially his revealing comment on Larry King to the effect that he really didn't know what Terri's wishes were, but that her death was what "we" (i.e. him and his concubine) wanted.

He perjured himself immediately after the malpractice lawsuit by trying to kill her through neglect of sepsis just after the judgement was issued and only discovered her "death wish" years later when it became expedient for him to claim the same.

Honest-minded persons can check here for more information:

http://wuzzadem.typepad.com/wuz/2005/03/terri_schiavos_.html

Posted by: Ernest Brown at April 3, 2005 07:17 PM

"Due process"? Please. The case has been in the courts for 7 years and I believe has been reviewed by a total of 19 judges on appeal. (And by the way, can we please put to rest the canard that only Judge Greer ever reviewed the facts of the case and the appellate courts ruled only on the procedural fairness? The Florida Second District Court of Appeals did review the evidence, including the medical experts' testimony and the videotapes supposedly demonstrating that Schiavo was conscious. They came to the same conclusion Greer did. This is one thing that so pisses me off about this case. 90% of what's coming out of the "save Terri" camp is lies and fabrications.)

This is not a death penalty case. There are probably hundreds of comatose or vegetative patients around the US who are taken off feeding tubes any given day - often without any legal review if there is no objection from any of the relatives. The law in Florida, like in most other states, explicitly includes artificial nutrition and hydration among the means of artificial life support that can be terminated whe