Will libertarianism triumph in the Republican Party?

[andrew320]

It seems as if the neo-conservatives of the Republican Party will become obsolete in the next one or two decades. There is such a positive growing movement of libertarians entering the GOP that it seems the likes of John McCain, Lindsey Graham and Orrin Hatch will disappear.

What do you think? Will libertarians or Barry Goldwater-type conservatives become the make-up of the Republican Party? It's like Dr. Ron Paul and his son said, the GOP will become dinosaurs if it doesn't embrace libertarian ideals.

Thoughts?

 

[tecoyah]

In my view, the GOP has little choice but change if it hopes to survive. One thing has become obvious...a smaller and smaller percentage of the people who call this country home are inspired by the current Republican direction.
Personally, I still remember fondly the party of 20 yrs ago, I was registered as such. Today I am a bit pissed off that it has fallen so far. I do not see the libertarian contingent willing (or stupid enough), to take a GOP label.

 

[blurinoctober]

I'm sure this will be the case eventually, otherwise these politicians will just be clinging to the past! Worse than they are now, that is. If very few people believe in what you're saying, it's hard to get elected.

That being said, I do foresee a fair amount of people fighting for their current belief system. They're sure to be drowned out by others eventually, but they will fight.

 

[bluefig]

I do believe the Republican Party will be heading in that direction - kicking and screaming, no doubt, lol. The turnout during the last election pretty much proves they have to change something, and fast.

I'm a fan of the Tea Party but not really a libertarian, at least not in the vein of Ron Paul. I think the Libertarian Party may not join up with the GOP but libertarian ideals, such as the principles of individual liberty and limited government, will become a center piece of the GOP, or it will die out. We shall see.

 

[Nemo]

Libertarianism would be a perfect political ideology but for one flaw: it doesn’t work. As a philosophy, it has no practical utility in the governance of men. Indeed, in all of history, there has been no state that was ever ruled by such principles. In a perfect world - where everyone would be righteous and just and there would be no need for laws to rule our lives - it might be possible. But that’s not the way of the world.

 

[bluefig]

I agree that sometimes libertarians seem like they lean toward anarchy, but as I said above, it's a few select ideals of libertarianism that have infected the GOP, mainly through the Tea Party, and I think it's a terminal infection that will transform the party. Especially at the state level. The Tea Party is young, and what it really stands for is a return to something that has been tried and worked pretty darn good, for a hundred years or so.

 

[Nemo]

The "Tea Party" activists are simpletons: they are always bringing up the "founding fathers" and the Constitution - as if any of them ever read the Constitution, much less understand its provisions for the foundation of our government. "We want our country back!" they cry. It’s laughable. They are like the evangelical Christians that misquote the gospels and ask, insipidly: "What would Jesus do?" They are stooges and shills for those who would use them to their own cross-purposes - those who would undermine the very foundations of our democratic institutions. (There are some that believe they have the right to take up arms against their lawfully constituted government!) The Tea Party may be simple fools; but those behind them are something else - they are not patriots, they are not loyal citizens, they are subversives.

 

[bluefig]

That may be the way you see things but it hasn't been my experience. The Tea Party may be pushing some "simple" ideas but there is an elegance to simplicity. I certainly hope the "democratic institutions" that have overrun the Republic are undermined! I'd truly love to see it. You seem a little keyed up and since I just signed up here and read all about the need to keep things civil, I think I'll leave you to your rant. Time will tell if the Republicans get on board or fade even further into irrelevancy. I think that was the topic of this discussion.

 

[Nemo]

Here is one who would make use of the Tea Party; but happily both are too stupid to be taken seriously:
http://www.politico.com/blogs/glennthrush/1109/Boehner_mixes_up_Constitution_and_Declaration.html

 

[Stonewall]

In my view, the GOP has little choice but change if it hopes to survive. One thing has become obvious...a smaller and smaller percentage of the people who call this country home are inspired by the current Republican direction.
Personally, I still remember fondly the party of 20 yrs ago, I was registered as such. Today I am a bit pissed off that it has fallen so far. I do not see the libertarian contingent willing (or stupid enough), to take a GOP label.

"Change if it hopes to survive?"

Suggestions, tecoyah?

 

[Stonewall]

The "Tea Party" activists are simpletons: they are always bringing up the "founding fathers" and the Constitution - as if any of them ever read the Constitution, much less understand its provisions for the foundation of our government. "We want our country back!" they cry. It’s laughable. They are like the evangelical Christians that misquote the gospels and ask, insipidly: "What would Jesus do?" They are stooges and shills for those who would use them to their own cross-purposes - those who would undermine the very foundations of our democratic institutions. (There are some that believe they have the right to take up arms against their lawfully constituted government!) The Tea Party may be simple fools; but those behind them are something else - they are not patriots, they are not loyal citizens, they are subversives.

Subversives?

I've been wondering why the economic stagnation and indecision in the face of adversity. I now know it's the subversives amongst us.

 

[tecoyah]

"Change if it hopes to survive?"

Suggestions, tecoyah?

My suggestions would be simple in concept, difficult in practice.

It would need to begin with a fundamental change in attitudes concerning the demographics in our country. Acceptance that white males are no longer the primary voting block, and by putting forth legislation that targets women, unions, minorities, gays....etc...the party shrinks the tent significantly.

Next would be a distancing from corporate and Coke brother mentality, a basic understanding that this is viewed by many as corruption and dishonest practice.

The inability to compromise due to a fractured caucus system would be next on the agenda. Between the Norquist phenomenon, and the Tea Party stagnation there is no longer a single party...there are at least three major chunks that are mostly in opposition to each other making decisions extremely difficult.

 

[Stonewall]

So, 'acceptance' of demographics, 'distancing' from corporation mentality, and then 'compromise' the fractured caucus?

How would you suggest 'acceptance' be endeavored upon? What 'legistlation' would you suggest be put forth, examples?

The corporate mentality certainly exists within both parties as well, I don't know what you mean there either. Apple is the largest corportion on the planet. George Soros gives $'s on the same level as the Koch's, I don't understand where you're going there, what would you have Republican Partier's do? Stop accepting corporate donations while democrats reap corporate millions? Beg your pardon but this seems to be like the Occupy Movement on Wall Street giving Steve Jobs a moment of silence, the anti-capitalists paying homage to the ultimate capitalist.

Lastly, fractures aren't unhealthy. I thought that's what political partys are for. Hashing out differences, throwing blood on the walls during party squabbles but then finding consensus and supporting a candidate. Isn't that merely historical politics?

 

[tecoyah]

You asked for suggestions and I provided them, you obviously disagree with them.... Okay. I simply do not care enough about either party to go beyond my initial reply. And though it would seem from your tone that you perceive me as attacking the GOP, I would like to point out the thread title and subject matter.

Had this thread been about the Democratic party issues...I would have quite a few suggestions as well.

 

[Stonewall]

You asked for suggestions and I provided them, you obviously disagree with them.... Okay. I simply do not care enough about either party to go beyond my initial reply. And though it would seem from your tone that you perceive me as attacking the GOP, I would like to point out the thread title and subject matter.

Had this thread been about the Democratic party issues...I would have quite a few suggestions as well.

I believe you misread tone. You provided general suggestions that are repeated often and by many. I was enjoying the conversation and simply asked you to elaborate. You suggested legislation, I asked for an example. You suggested distance from corporations, I was merely pointing out Democrat's cozy relationship with corporations as well and thus that 'change' suggestion on your part didn't make sense.

I'm new, I wasn't making tone.

 

[clax]

I personally would love to see libertarians be the driving force in either party. I think they sync more with republicans but tend to be a little more liberal in domestic life policy, I think of they distanced them selves from the nuts and moved more central socially I think they would trump both parties. As it stands your choice is between two lousy candidates, just pick the less lousy one an option that repped both sides better in my estimate would devastate the mediocrity.

The thing that would cut against them is the party branding. But say they were to ruin as a democrat or Republican them I think they would get a lot of cross over support.

 

[Stonewall]

I don't see libertarian trumping Democrats. Where many versions may appeal to some Republicans, Democrats have pushed further left. They believe government should be providing health care and housing not to mention human basic needs as well.

There's never been a question government can't answer isn't a libertarian platform.

 

[clax]

I don't see libertarian trumping Democrats. Where many versions may appeal to some Republicans, Democrats have pushed further left. They believe government should be providing health care and housing not to mention human basic needs as well.

There's never been a question government can't answer isn't a libertarian platform.

The bought and sold party slaves will always be owned. But if you voted for democrats because yo want abortion to be legal or gay marriage or any social rule, now you have a new option, that doesn't come with giving away I phone 5s to people with 100 grand cars.

Its an alternative, unions will vote democrat, but their iron grip is loosening, no with 50% of the nation's states going right to work. All the business will move to better less oligarchal states. Jobs are flourishing, economy is growing. The union states are dieing. The shift may not be conservative but it is more realistic

 

[Stonewall]

What 'new option' do you have should you be Democrat? Libertarians cannot mesh with national health care do they?

And how is it you can be libertarian and yet want government to make your abortion legal or government to endeavor to accept same sex marriage?

Isn't libertarian less government intervention. How would a Democrat reconcile the big government program mentality with the little to few government inverventions professed by libertarians?

Then how does one reconcile the war monger Obama with any libertarian foreign policy?

 

[clax]

What 'new option' do you have should you be Democrat? Libertarians cannot mesh with national health care do they?

And how is it you can be libertarian and yet want government to make your abortion legal or government to endeavor to accept same sex marriage?

Isn't libertarian less government intervention. How would a Democrat reconcile the big government program mentality with the little to few government inverventions professed by libertarians?

Then how does one reconcile the war monger Obama with any libertarian foreign policy?

If the government doesn't entangle itself within the concept of merriage Unger is no one to be discriminated against, why would they get involved into medical practice?

The only solution to "Obama care" is abolishment, I don't think the majority of the nation wants more money stolen from them by the warmonger and chief.