the “real threat” to the GOP
|
|
Published November 20th, 2008
So apparently the real threat to the GOP all this time has not been the Republicans voting in favor of the bailout, the farm bill and the Iraq War but rather the “libertarianism masked as conservatism.” What?!?!
Fresh with a new book on Amazon and a show on Faux News, Mike Huckabee is complaining about everyone from fellow presidential candidates, the media, to the leaders in the religious right. He takes issue with the “smugness with which they [libertarians] believe it [no tax increases]“. Is this what the GOP has become? The party of big government engineered solutions and increased taxes? If so, then I need to rethink my party affiliations. At the very least I will Do the Right Thing and not buy this book.
on 
The point that Mike Huckabee is making, is that there is a difference between libertarianism and conservatism. If you hold libertarian views on things that’s fine but libertarianism is not conservatism.
Steven, it’s a matter of degrees/shades. You can be a Fiscal Conservative and a Social Liberal. While that makes you a Libertarian, it doesn’t make you any less fiscally Conservative. Huckabee has shown a willingness to compromise on Fiscal Conservatism for the sake of Social Conservatism and to many within the Republican Party that is a backwards concept.
So Libertarians are “social liberals”? Ha, ha, ha, … that’s pretty funny!
granted the last 6 years has bastardized fiscal conservatism into making people think the Free Market includes running up the deficit, bailing out failing companies, and expanding the size of govt but at least the GOP still talked the talk, until now. McCain blaming the meltdown of Wall Street on “greed” and Huckabee whining about Libertarians being smug about lower taxes really concerns me. If the GOP rhetoric continues to move to the Left then what is the point of the Republican party?
Liberty = Limited Govt
Conservative = ???
Jason, don’t misunderstand me. I am not suggesting that some Libertarians do not hold fiscally conservative positions. However, the point that I am making and the point that Huckabee is making is that the Republican Party was founded on the pro-life principle(i.e. abolition of slavery) and that is a non-negotiable principle. I am absolutely opposed to higher taxes. Sometimes it is necessary to shift 3 million to solve a problem now than to pay 12 million five years down the road. Thats called fiscal responsibility. In Idaho, social conservatives and Ron Paul Libertarians worked together without compromising principles if they can do it than so can people like Amit and us.
Steven, in the article Huckabee wasn’t complaining about the social conservatism of Libertarians but rather their Fiscal Conservatism. As far as social conservatism is concerned, Ron Paul is a staunch Pro-Lifer and understands at the same time that government cannot regulate good behavior and it shouldn’t because it is counter-productive.
Thanks for the head’s up, Amit.
As long as the Republican Party ignores its own creed, it will continue to decline. If people want bigger government and higher taxation, the Democratic Party has been putting that message out for years and they’re better at it.
The precedent is clear.
1. The federal government can take action to stop injustices(i.e. The Emancipation Proclamation)
2. Federal money can ON OCCASION be used to promote the public good (i.e Thomas Jefferson gave federal money to missionaries ministering to the Indians)
I agree that we must keep the government within it’s constitutional limits unfortunately, SOME Libertarians are advocating that government neglect some of it’s constitutional responsibilities. We all have the same goal and that is to see limited government. Most all of the social conservatives that I know believe in smaller government. It is a myth to suggest that social conservatives are economic liberals. We all want to see government limited. Taking distorted potshots at Mike Huckabee will not accomplish that goal.
Steve, what Constitutional responsibilities do Libertarians advocate the govt neglect? I don’t remember in my last reading of the Constitution about how the Federal govt is supposed to bailout auto companies, regulate marriage, and provide healthcare for everyone.
Sadly, we all do not want the govt limited. The Bush Administration purposely and successfully tried to expand the role of govt with programs such as the Patriot Act, No Child Left Behind, and Medicare Part D.
Not sure how my “potshot” at Huckabee is distorted. In Huckabee’s new book he has a chapter called “Faux-Cons: Worse than Liberalism” where he refers to Libertarians who do not want to raise taxes as the “real threat” to the GOP, which was the original purpose of the post.
For me, just saying you wouldn’t grow the govt as quickly as the competition doesn’t make you someone who understands Limited Govt. We need candidates who are not just going to grow the govt slower but actually reduce the size of govt.
Amit, I agree with some of the points that you made.
No Child Left has greatly expanded the role of govt. in education and Mike Huckabee has said that he believes that the states should make more of these desicions.
I believe that the bank bailouts and the auto bailouts are a travesty that will increase the size and scope of govt. to unimaginable levels. Mike Huckabee feels the same way.
The govt. can define marriage. During the early 1800’s many of our founding leaders used the federal platform to oppose polygamy, and the Patriot Act, while some previsions can be troublesome, falls within the govts. wartime powers. I don’t mean to seem disagreeable, but you may be attacking a future ally, his record exonerates him. Let’s stop this infighting and work together.
first, I’m still not aware of what Constitutional responsibilities Libertarians advocate the govt to neglect.
second, Huckabee running for office in the future has no bearing on whether I believe his statements about fiscal conservatism are right or wrong. He has clearly stated that increases in taxes are needed which is consistent if you want the govt to become larger and control more of our lives.
third, in the future at some point I will discuss how govt regulation cheapens the sacred bond of Marriage and how the Patriot Act is counter-productive to our safety.
I say that guys like Huckabee are the real threat to the GOP. Sure, let’s keep being a big-tent party, let’s be everything to everyone and keep trying to upstage the Democrats by doing what they do, only better.
Excuse me while I vomit. Reagan said that the heart of Conservatism was Libertarianism. Are we supposed to take our advice on what Conservatism ought to be from a guy who is best friends with Richard Haas, former president of the Council on Foreign Relations - a group dedicated to establishing the ‘New World Order’ that Bush Sr., Joe Biden and Gordon Brown seem to like discussing an awful lot, with no loyalty to the Constitution, the principles of the founding fathers, or the people of the United States of America?
Yeah, right. GTFO, Huckster. Kick rocks. Some Republican you are.
About the “Socially Liberal” thing. That is not quite accurate. I am Libertarian.
I am pro-life, but I recognize that there are limits to what government should do regarding abortion. Government has a duty to protect life, but when life begins must be determined by consensus in the legislature, (not the courts.) Even then, the right of self defense is retained.
I do not use drugs, but I recognize that government is ineffective in preventing drug use. I see the economic futility of prohibition. If I could prevent all drug use through persuasion, I would.
I do not use prostitutes, but I can find nothing in our Constitution or our theory of government that empowers government to intervene.
In short, I live my life in a very socially conservative manner, and I advocate others do the same, but I do not condone the use of force to compel others to make the same moral choices as I have.
So, how am I socially liberal?
Dan, guess who doubled the gas tax to pay for roads?
Ronald Reagan.
who reduced the top tax rate from 50% to 28%?
Ronald Reagan.