Third Party & Independents Archives

Libertarian or Evangelical direction for GOP?

The two major political parties in the United States are, of course, coalitions of voting blocs who work together to advance common goals, but who are at odds on other issues. We are stuck with this reality so long as third parties are kept out of contention.

In light of this, what pundits often refer to as “infighting” is probably better viewed as just “fighting”, since the various factions in these two parties are of such divergent interests, and not really of the same family. In fact, it can be hard to tell whether changes in party identity are due to calculated steering of the party or strategic moves by interests who jump parties en masse. The recent discussion by libertarian voters about voting Democrat in order to put the brakes on the Republican government is an excellent example. Will the GOP turn more libertarian in order to woo these voters back? Or will it turn less libertarian now that we have left the table? Note that the Libertarian Party is completely insignificant in this discussion, sadly.

Bart Mongoven wrote a piece this past week at Stratfor (subscription required) that asserts that

the overlap between the libertarian Republican point of view and that of religious conservatives has dissolved during the past decade of Republican control of government. For secular libertarians, a small government was the central objective; for the religious conservatives, small government was an element of a strategy to reduce the power -- or at least slow the growth -- of institutions purveying secular values. The growth of government over the past 10 years has suggested to evangelicals that the strategy does not work. The Faith-Based Initiative, for instance, is seen as a small move in a positive direction, but one that also has done nothing to displace secular federal government activity.

Is there any chance that libertarians and evangelicals are both jumping ship in order to express dissatisfaction with each other? Does that leave the ship a bit empty and rudderless? What would that mean for the GOP? Mongoven believes that the party will follow the evangelicals, as they provide more of a geographic base of support – but that evangelicals will have to come more to the middle for that to work. But I don’t know how easy it will be to pull that off before the ’08 elections.

The sense among the evangelical grassroots is that the Republican Party has used them, but only paid lip service to their goals, aspirations and values.

Amen, brother.

Regarding the importance of geography to the evangelical-Republican bond, consider this news article:

”If you look at several states in the Southeast where the evangelical base came out in undiminished numbers, it held for Republicans. When you move to the heartland, there was some peel away. ... The question is why?”

[Author Mark Pinsky] noted that Republican candidates in Florida "who ran to the center" did better than those who ran "hard right." He cited Gov.-elect Charlie Christ, who is pro-life and anti-gay marriage, but who supports civil unions. As attorney general, Christ opposed intervention in the Terri Schiavo case.

"He didn't back away during the primary," Pinsky said. "He must have sensed there was fissure among white evangelicals."

"I think evangelicals are feeling pretty homeless right now," said Janice Shaw Krouse, director and senior fellow of the Beverly LaHaye Institute, a think tank affiliated with Concerned Women for America. "They're increasingly uncomfortable with a party that didn't really make their issues top priority. In 2004, 74 percent of evangelicals voted Republican. In 2006, it was 69 percent. That's a huge difference, politically."

The biggest problem with libertarians may very well be that we are too disorganized to be highlighted in a news article. I have no idea what percentage of libertarians voted Republican in 2004 or 2006. I consider this yet more evidence that the GOP will have a better chance of winning back evangelicals than libertarians. And frankly, that is probably good news for Democrats - and bad news for libertarians of all persuasions.

Posted by Wulf at December 3, 2006 9:12 PM
Comments
Comment #197609

“Is there any chance that libertarians and evangelicals are both jumping ship in order to express dissatisfaction with each other? Does that leave the ship a bit empty and rudderless?”

(what about the corporate shills and neocons? or are they too busy plundering the treasury to notice…)

anyway, they may need the evangelicals (and libertarians), but i’m not sure they realize how badly…

“…for the religious conservatives, small government was an element of a strategy to reduce the power…of institutions purveying secular values. The growth of government over the past 10 years has suggested to evangelicals that the strategy does not work.”

i think this has clearly been a failure of the republican politicians to pursue such policies, not the libertarian ideology backing them. this crop of republicans has thoroughly embraced an expansive and invasive federal government… thus, in order to solicit the evangelicals, i think they will need to make a drastic and unambiguous return to said libertarian ambitions.

“I have no idea what percentage of libertarians voted Republican in 2004 or 2006. I consider this yet more evidence…”

can you site a source for this? i’m confused as to how a lack of factual information can be perceived as evidence for, or against your claim here (unless you are merely suggesting that no one has cared enough about the libertarians to bother compiling such statistics).

Posted by: Diogenes at December 4, 2006 12:14 AM
Comment #197612

While I personally would like to see the Republicans move more towards libertarian policy it isnt going to happen. Many Republicans in the past few years have had a full on war on civil liberties: Patroit, Military Commissions Act, wiretapping, defense of wiretapping, etc etc. I don’t personally see true Libertarians condoning this, every Libertarian I have ever met wants PATRIOT repealed, and Republicans are not in any manner looking at that option. As long as this continues I see the Evangelical sector of the party continuing to stay rather influential, although I think that very soon the Republican party will be taken over the extreme anti-immigrant racist right.

Posted by: Richard Rhodes at December 4, 2006 1:21 AM
Comment #197614
but that evangelicals will have to come more to the middle for that to work.

That ain’t going to happen. Evangelicals are not common street walkers, they are high class call girls. High maintanance, high class call girls, at that.

I consider this yet more evidence that the GOP will have a better chance of winning back evangelicals than libertarians.

The GOP absolutly has a better chance of winning back evangelicals, they have not been alienated anywhere near the extent libertarians have. However, if the GOP intends to woo the evangelicals back and retain them, they will have no choice but to take them seriously. That means feeding the evangelical beast in return for it’s loyalty. In the process, conservative libertarians, as well as mainstream conservatives, fiscal conservatives, centrist conservatives, and every other conservative group that does not fit under the evangelical moniker will be “left behind.”

Secular liberals did the same thing to the Democratic Party. Fortunantly, the Democrats figured out that they must broaden their appeal to survive. It has taken a lot of time and work to bring those other liberal groups back into the fold. I suspect that the GOP will realize the same thing.

What is interesting, though, is that there was no other party waiting in the wings to absorb those disenfranchised by the Democratic Party. Those who found nothing redeeming in the GOP simply became Independents. Most people feel the need to belong. Being an Independent is not always the most comfortable place to be for some people.

This time around, as the GOP moves increasingly out of the mainstream, the Libertarian Party has taken controversial steps, (within the party itself, anyway), to move into the mainstream. What that means is that if the Libertarian Party plays it’s hand right, those disenfranchised conservatives may find a comfortable new home in the Libertarian Party. If they get comfortable enough, it may not be so easy for the GOP to win them back when they discover the error of their ways.

Posted by: JayJay at December 4, 2006 2:35 AM
Comment #197638

Wulf, excellent article.

I would suggest that Libertarians would be wise to seek a new home in the Democratic Party if they are willing to work at it. The Democrats are in a position to co-opt Republican traditional themes like smaller government and lower cost of government, which will be essential foundations for Democrats to save Soc. Sec. and reform and preserve Medicare/Medicaid.

That said, it remains to be seen if this trend of Republocrats becoming dinosaurs of our political system continues. If the exodus from Republican and Democratic party registrants to the growing status of Independent voters continues, Libertarian candidates may fare better preserving the core of their party platform, dumping ideology and championing accountable and responsible government use of tax payer dollars. This is a growing theme for voters along with ethics and corruption, and Libertarian candidates are well positioned to capture support from this new burgeoning Independent class.

As for the Evangelicals, my guess is they will continue to be marginalized as time marches on and the people of the world accept the fact that fundamentalists of any religion are a very dangerous lot of people deserving to be deprived of power over others. Religion is a power structure organization ill suited to manage nations and large diverse demographics of people.

Thus, humanity will march inexorably toward a separation of church and state, in which the power of the state is a matter of assent or revolution for the people, and the power of religion extends no further than the worship place or front door of the believer, which is where it rightly belongs.

Posted by: David R. Remer at December 4, 2006 11:04 AM
Comment #197651

It depends on what you call evangelical. As a Baptist I’m evangelical in the sense that I believe in the Great Commission that Christ gave before he ascended back to heaven. To “Go into all the world an preach the Gospel”. But I’m not evangelical in the sense that I’m going to try to push my beliefs and values on anyone. Those that want to push their beliefs and values onto others are not evangelicals. And I wish they’d start calling themselves something else.
It’s not surprising though that the ‘religious right’ or neocons will most likely stay with the Republican party. While they may feel that they haven’t gotten the deal they wanted no other party is even going to give lip service to what they want. The problem with the Libertarians going to the Democrat Party is that it won’t represent them either. In case no ones noticed the neolibs have control of the it and are going to represent the fringe of that party.

Posted by: Ron Brown at December 4, 2006 12:37 PM
Comment #197655
In case no ones noticed the neolibs have control of the it and are going to represent the fringe of that party.

Ron,

I hope you are right. After the neocons took us to the fringes of never-never land, I think we need the fringes of the left to pull us back towards reality. My hope is that the whole of the Democratic Party of today is diversified enough to stop somewhere reasonable without going too far to the left. I guess only time will tell.

Posted by: JayJay at December 4, 2006 1:26 PM
Comment #197658

ron,

neolibs and neocons are functionally the same thing. i do not believe that either hold any significant sway over the democrats, as of yet. they found a home in the republican party. moreover, i think that this past election has shown the democrats coming back to the middle. several (socially) conservative democrats were elected - if the party will represent them, then perhaps now is the time, as mr. remer suggests, to try to squeeze in some libertarian democrat candidates? it is an intriguing thought…

Posted by: Diogenes at December 4, 2006 1:47 PM
Comment #197661

JayJay
I hope the Democrat Party can pull us back from the fringe too. But I’m afraid that it’ll take us way over left if it does.


Diogenes
So you think that Nancy Pelosi isn’t a neolib? Got some Atlantic Ocean front property in California I’ll sell ya really cheap.
And how are the neolibs going to find a home in the Republican Party. Has it gone super liberal lately?
I really don’t believe the Democrat party is all that moderate.

Posted by: Ron Brown at December 4, 2006 2:06 PM
Comment #197662

Ron, quite right! That’s why I said Evangelicals (who believe in preaching to willing audiences) will be marginalized as Fundamentalists (who believe in converting everyone willing or not) continue to generate backlash against them.

The problem in America today, however, is that so many Evangelicals are also Fundamentalists with regard to lobbying, campaign contributions to candidates who will mandate religion in public schools, and supporting Justices and Legislators who would tear down the separation of church and state.

Fundamentalists of all religions, it appears to me, adhere to the doctrine that their’s is only the true religion and the enemy is everyone who does not subscribe to their interpretation of their religion.

Posted by: David R. Remer at December 4, 2006 2:41 PM
Comment #197665

ron, i think you are confused as to the widely accepted meaning of the terms ‘neoliberal’ and ‘neoconservative.’ neolib doesn’t mean a radical far leftist liberal, nor does neocon mean an extremist right-winger. they are labels for the same philosophy - arguable both misnomers, and certainly both wrong.

neolibs are european neocons - where the term ‘liberal’ means a substantially different thing than it does hear. actually, to be more accurate, neolibs came first… margaret thatcher - the infamous english neolib, for example. no liberal in the states would ever consider her ‘liberal’ in the american sense of the word.

there are subtle differences, i think (neocon/neolib)… but again, they are functionally the same. pelosi is a far, far, far cry from a neolib. lieberman, on the other hand, may very well be a neolib, though (again, the term in the states is neocon).

Posted by: Diogenes at December 4, 2006 2:49 PM
Comment #197667

sorry for the typos…

i know it’s a confusing topic; however, for the purposes of clarification, i would suggest that you refrain from utilizing the term ‘neolib,’ because it has little bearing on american politics.

if you wish for a better, more thorough explanation, google or wiki it. i’d suggest you look up ‘neocon,’ ‘neolib,’ and margaret thatcher.

“there is no such thing as society” - thatcher.

does that sound *anything* like a socialist, or liberal idea?

Posted by: Diogenes at December 4, 2006 3:00 PM
Comment #197692

Neocon? Neolib?

Do these terms suggest that these two groups have changed.

The only changes I have seen is that the Democratic party use to be pro-union and are now pro-gay-and-women-rights and the Republican party use to be pro-small-business and are now pro-judeochristian-and-importer/exporter-rights.

So if by Neocon you mean ultra religous stock holder and by Neolib you mean homosexual man hating women, then yes, I can see where your going with that.

Posted by: Bryan AJ Kennedy at December 4, 2006 7:46 PM
Comment #197702

…unless you are merely suggesting that no one has cared enough about the libertarians to bother compiling such statistics

That’s exactly what I was saying, Diogenes.

The Democrats are in a position to co-opt Republican traditional themes like smaller government and lower cost of government, which will be essential foundations for Democrats to save Soc. Sec. and reform and preserve Medicare/Medicaid.

It is a great opportunity for them, David, but when I look at the party leadership, I just can’t see this happening. Can you?

What I find myself wondering is whether the Democrats are more likely to do what you suggest, or to accommodate that evangelical vote. Evangelicals have a desire to work for social justice, and the Democrats have long claimed to be the party for it. Younger evangelicals in particular won’t be hard to enlist – but possibly at the price of the aims David lists above.

I’m interested in seeing how much of a balancing act the Democrats will attempt, and how successful they will be.

Posted by: Wulf at December 4, 2006 8:32 PM
Comment #197705

wulf,

well then, point taken.

still, simply because no one has cared does not automatically signify that the libertarians are not important enough to warrant such concern. those who discount those of the libertarian bent may very well do so at their own peril…

Posted by: Diogenes at December 4, 2006 9:00 PM
Comment #197707

bryan aj,

“Do these terms suggest that these two groups have changed.”

as i was attempting to explain in my prior posts… they are, for all intents and purposes, one and the same (neocon/neolib), so;

“… if by Neocon you mean ultra religous stock holder and by Neolib you mean homosexual man hating women, then yes, I can see where your going with that.”

no, that’s not the case. neolibs are not liberals, in any sense of the word that you or i would employ… they are neocons. likewise, neocons are not conservatives… confusing, i know. all the more confusing that they (neocons/neolibs) have commandeered the republican party.

when you look at the policies of this current administration, and find yourself asking, “what the hell are they doing? that’s not very conservative…”
- this is why. they are not conservatives, they are not traditional republicans, they are RINOs.

Posted by: Diogenes at December 4, 2006 9:11 PM
Comment #197714

Okay I get it,

So neocon/neolib are the super religious stock holders who justifying destroying whole lot of everything for a little bit of a different something.

So what do we call the new breed of democrats that justify sacrificing the rights of the majority of Americans for the few Americans who are different-but-special?

What happened to our actual parties. You know the democrats who believe in unions, lower taxes, and individual rights and the republicans who believed in equality, fiscal responsibility, and lower government expenditures?

Posted by: Bryan AJ Kennedy at December 4, 2006 9:49 PM
Comment #197720

yes, for the most part. still,

“So neocon/neolib are the super religious stock holders…”

stockholders, yes…but i think they use religion - i find it very difficult to believe that these people hold *anything* as sacred, much less the religion they purport to follow… they wear it like garb, and shed it at a whim.

“So what do we call the new breed of democrats that justify sacrificing the rights of the majority of Americans for the few Americans who are different-but-special?”

i don’t know, ridiculous? wrong? uhh… different-but-special, perhaps.

“What happened to our actual parties. You know…”

yes, i know… and i don’t know. they are all career politicians these days; which means, i think, that they are far more qualified and experienced… at manipulating and capitalizing on our fears and ignorance.

i think at some point they realized that if no good alternative was offered, then we would be forced to vote for them… (a republican, til we can no longer stomach the sight of them - then we vote democrat, til the same occurs… and we again vote republican… etc., ad infinitum.)

i will say, while i think the neocons(/neolibs) are the worst of the lot, it seems that the others are increasingly trending in the same direction. it seems that all that is being compromised in dc these days is morality, ethics, and virtue (oh yes, and the welfare of the american people).

some call it pessimism - i call it reality.

Posted by: Diogenes at December 4, 2006 10:18 PM
Comment #197722
If the exodus from Republican and Democratic party registrants to the growing status of Independent voters continues, Libertarian candidates may fare better preserving the core of their party platform, dumping ideology and championing accountable and responsible government use of tax payer dollars. This is a growing theme for voters along with ethics and corruption, and Libertarian candidates are well positioned to capture support from this new burgeoning Independent class.

With all due respect, while there are many admirable ideas in the libertarian party, I’m not so sure its free of extremism or ideology as you suggest. In a sense, libertarianism is the very essence of absolutism that allows no room for compromise.

In libertarianism, all government intervention (except of course to prevent direct violence) is considered “bad.” On the other hand, a completely unregulated free market is seen as ideal and the best way to govern. These are absolutes accepted regardless of evidence.

So if a libertarian government is elected, you can say goodbye to the environment, civil rights laws, government-funded research (please note the internet started out as a government project), and any form of safety net. In a libertarian system the government would be powerless to solve problems like global warming or any problem that might require state intervention.

Many fundamentalist-type libertarians even seem to go so far as to see any government regulation or act as “communism,” so if you agree with any regulation, you’re labeled a “marxist.”

Many people like myself strong agree with the libertarian position on civil rights, personal freedom, and the constitution without the free-market extremism. However this is already a stance taken by liberalism.

I also think it’s not necessarily true when people say libertarianism is the sensible solution, favored by most Americans (if only they knew about it). The fact is most people do want the government to help solve global warming and oil addiction, most Americans do want some form of safety net (although not of course redistribution or wealth or socialism like in Europe), and they agree with centrist positions.

Small government does not necessarily mean a government that’s responsible or does what most people want their government to do. I’m not so sure shrinking the government so it’s nearly impotent beyond a few basic functions is going to solve all our problems.

Again, having a few libertarian candidates would probably be a good idea, however I think it’s premature to suggest right now people want libertarianism as their first choice to reform the government.

Posted by: thom. at December 4, 2006 10:27 PM
Comment #197723

Hmmm…

well to be the up-most honest with you, the only real thing I give a damn about is my social security.

If I can get one group of people to do that, they would have my unlimited dedication.

And by fix, I mean stop borrowing, lower expenditures, cut sex offender and illegal immigrant benefits and give them back to the worthy tax payers, only give it to those who are either working or retired.

The person/people who can do that, will get my vote, until then I will keep VOTING OUT all those that vote for laws that cost me more money.

Because when you get down to the nitty-gritty, I am just a good old fashioned Capitalist. Give me mine and keeps yours to yourself. And everyone best keep there hands out of mine, government included.

Free-market, free-trade, tax down the middle and leave it at that.

Everytime we get the government to do something they screw it up.

It just goes to show my senile grandfather is right:

“If’n yuh wan sumtin den rot, git off yer kis’r en guh duh it yer dam-self”.

And yes he is Texan.

Posted by: Bryan AJ Kennedy at December 4, 2006 10:31 PM
Comment #197727

wulf,

The short answer is that the GOP can be both.

I was registered as a libertarian for many years. But I am also a conservative evangelical. I see no dichotomy between the two except on the issue of abortion. A case where a human life is involved.

Other issues, like making homosexuality illegal or whatever other scare tactic that the left tries to put out there as the goals of ‘theocrats’ is just plain nonsense.

Posted by: eric simonson at December 4, 2006 11:07 PM
Comment #197736

David

Fundamentalists of all religions, it appears to me, adhere to the doctrine that their’s is only the true religion and the enemy is everyone who does not subscribe to their interpretation of their religion.

If I didn’t believe that the Baptist doctrine was the right one I wouldn’t be one. Just by being Baptist I’m saying that I believe that other religious beliefs are wrong. Just like by be Methodist, Presbyterian, Lutheran, Catholic, or anything else, the person is saying that they believe that the other religious belief are wrong.
While some do believe that the others are the enemy I don’t think that most folks will consider someone of another religion is the enemy.
I have several friends that aren’t Baptist. I sue don’t consider them the enemy. The enemy are the folks that either want to convert you or kill you.

Posted by: Ron Brown at December 5, 2006 12:14 AM
Comment #197737

Diogenes
What would ya call Pelosi? She sure as hell ain’t close to moderate.
I doubt very much that neolibs for the most part are religious at all. Unless you want to athiestism a religion. If so you on your own when the athiest start coming down on you.

Posted by: Ron Brown at December 5, 2006 12:21 AM
Comment #197738

pelosi? misguided. a radical leftist. i don’t know enough about her to say exactly how far left she is… but i know enough to say that i would never refer to her as a moderate.

Posted by: Diogenes at December 5, 2006 12:45 AM
Comment #197803
Free-market, free-trade, tax down the middle and leave it at that.

Everytime we get the government to do something they screw it up.

I’m not sure that’s necessarily true;there are lots of examples of government working. In the 60s clean air legislation was a success, it drastically made our cities much better places to live in (and it’s been suggested that without any such legislation, American cities would be as bad or worse as Mexico City).

The Endangered Species act has worked pretty well.
The Internet started out as a government project, and it’s safe to say it’s been a success. And would we really be better off without the FDA?

I’m sorry it just seems so many people take it for granted that private industry is always better than the not-for-profit public sector, and that laizeiss-faire capitalism will always yield the best outcome. The problem is a good deal of evidence doesn’t support this.

Posted by: thom at December 5, 2006 3:40 PM
Comment #197812

thom,

Yes, I can agree with that.

The government has been sucessful with enviroment issues, public transportation/public roads and a military that is the world’s finest.

Still, the more we ask the government for help, generally the more we hurt ourselves.

Like health insurance, it was dirt cheap and damn near everyone could afford it.

We wanted it for those who couldn’t afford it, now hardly any one who needs it can afford it.

We should have just left that one alone.

We should also not punish companies by taking money from them that they will just end up taking from the people.

You can fight Capitalism, just know that you will lose. No one has ever lost that battle. No one has ever slowed a corperation down via taking their money, they’ll just pass the losses to you the consumer.

I can’t really blame.

If it was money, I would do it to.

Posted by: Bryan AJ Kennedy at December 5, 2006 4:29 PM
Comment #197860

Ron Brown said: “If I didn’t believe that the Baptist doctrine was the right one I wouldn’t be one. Just by being Baptist I’m saying that I believe that other religious beliefs are wrong.”

You forgot to add the words at the end of that sentence, “FOR ME”.

Fundamentalists believe everyone MUST believe as they do or they constitute a threat. Non-fundamentalists believe their religion is right for them, and other religions are right for others, and tolerance of differing religions poses no threat. That is the difference.

Posted by: David R. Remer at December 5, 2006 9:14 PM
Comment #198036

So a non-fundamentalist believes that tolerance of different religions poses no threat, does that mean that the non-fundamentalist would agree that any belief is right as long is it is the belief that you believe to be true.

If so, that would mean that a non-fundamentalist would believe that a fundamentalist is perfectly acceptable so long as their faith in fundamentalism is true.

Therefor, breaking the purose of defining fundamentalist vs. non-fundamentalist.

So by this definition if you differ a non-fundamentalist from a fundamentalist you your self are a fundamentalist.

… and my mom said I would never have any use for that philosophy class.

Posted by: Bryan AJ Kennedy at December 6, 2006 9:03 PM
Comment #198049

David
I didn’t forget anything.
I can believe that what I believe is right and others are wrong without believing that anyone that believes different than me is a threat. In fact I do believe that way. I’m not threatened by other beliefs. Religious or otherwise.
Just because someone doesn’t believe like I do doesn’t mean they’re out to get me. And I’m not out to get them either. And I’m about as fundamental as they get.
The problem is, like a lot of other things, the label fundamemtalist has been wrongly attached to and claimed by a fringe group that aint anymore fundamental as a dog.

Posted by: Ron Brown at December 6, 2006 10:00 PM
Comment #198434

Wulf, great insight. I think a strong, interchangeable third party is well over due here in the U.S. True democracy can not exist if a large margin of citizens and voters are left out of the conversation. The possibility of the Libertarians indirectly affecting the 2008 presidential elections makes me recall the 2000 elections when the Green party was called out for taking votes away from the Democrats. I fear that many Libertarians will likely use their vote to protest whomever the republican candidate will be because in all likelihood that candidate will have to press for more involvement in the American peoples lives to push through their fear-induced agenda. A protest vote has no place in democracy. The Republican party, and politicians in general know and recognize better than anyone else that politics makes for strange bed-fellows.

Posted by: yyoung at December 9, 2006 1:10 AM
Comment #198629

David Remer,

Your view of fundamentalists has some serious flaws, as some responders have pointed out! The predominantly Christian right is not worried or afraid of those with other beliefs that are not trying to impose their beliefs on all the rest of society. Fundamentalists fear that those that want to destroy the sanctity of life are leading us down a terrible path. Those that wish to destroy the sanctity of marriage are, also. The Right to Life and certain institutions created within our fundamental beliefs by a higher authority are to be protected. It is our right to attempt to do so, in the free practice of religion guaranteed within the Constitution. There will always be issues of right and wrong, (and yes, there is a right and a wrong within society), that are disagreed upon. This is where the society as a whole should come together to decide upon these issues, (by vote). However, most issues of right and wrong are being decided in very liberal courts today. The Judicial Branch should not be legislating laws, which is almost the norm anymore. I’m sure even the staunchest Libertarians would agree with me, an Ultra Conservative Fundamentalist, on this issue. When I hear of former Democratic Reps. like Jim McDermott refusing to say “under God” when reciting the Pledge of Allegiance, and read about Democrats promoting, or at least not criticizing, the ACLU, and other groups like the Freedom from Religion Foundation that, in my opinion of their website, reeks of hatred for Christians and Jews, including their work to set up monuments for atheists while tearing down with lawsuits the Fundamentalist’s rights to erect their own symbols across America, I find this alarming. If atheists want to erect their symbols, fine! But why force down the symbols of other groups just because the atheists and agnostics are intolerant? We are all supposed to be able to live side by side, remember? I think most Libertarians would also agree with me on this issue.
However, my point is that the only Party that is embracing the Religious Conservative at this time is the Republican Party. I also think that Libertarians are blowing the Budget issues out of proportion seeing that we are fighting a War on Terror in two different locations across the globe right now. Certainly Democrats have incredibly poor records on a balanced budget of any kind, or of reigning in social spending. So that leaves the Republican Party as the only logical choice for any of us. That’s just the way it is!!

JD

Posted by: JD at December 11, 2006 12:24 AM
Comment #198651

All this talk of libertarians linking up with Democrats is sheer and utter nonsense. We libertarians have virtually nothing in common with the Dems. In fact, they’re more our enemies. They’re the very people that kept us off the ballots all over the US for property rights and spending limits this year. And they were downright dirty about it too! Even blocking our brave petitioners in Montana, Missouri, Nebraska and other states.

The Democrats are more the enemy of the libertarian.

And how does one explain the fact that more libertarians were elected this year on the Republican ticket then ever before??

The Republican Liberty Caucus (libertarian wing of the GOP) had a banner year! 80% of RLC-backed candidates won. Congressman Ron Paul easily won reelection, despite the Democrats targetting him for defeat with over 65% of the vote.

“Libertarian Democrat”? An oxymoronic alliance if there ever was one.

Eric at www.mainstreamlibertarian.com

Posted by: Eric Dondero at December 11, 2006 7:33 AM
Post a comment