Calling All Libertarians and True Republicans

[BrightNoon]

Now that Obama has won the U.S. election, as all reasonable people have long assumed he would, by landslide nonetheless, what will be the future of the conservative movement? I myself am almost as opposed to republican policy as democratic, both because of the Right's reliance on 'values voters' and because of the complete betrayal of the libertarian principles of the party, which have been degrading since the reign of FDR. Personally, I think the republican party should be allowed to die; we need a new party and a new name. That is unlikely to happen however, so I think the Rep. will have two choice; to become more similiar to the left, as they have done gradually in recent decades, losing their identity altogether, or to thoroughly dissososciate themselves from those policies and build a platform based on libertarian principles. The current model cannot last and cannot be successful any longer it would seem. If there are any true republicans left (no pun intended), I reccomend that they reform themselves, eject the corrupting influences, centrists, neocons, evangelicals, etc, accept a minority role for a party that truly deserves the name republican, and gradually rebuild their image. Inviting the libertarians, constitutionalists and others of similiar bent to a party meeting, to discuss merger of some kind, might not be a bad idea either.

I think this is the last chance for we libertarians or republicans; if the party ressumes its bad habits after this election, which, though ugly for us, is a great opportunity, I say our day is done. The libertarians and other fringe parties can't do anything themselves; they need to join in a larger movement that can only begin with what remains of the true republican party.

Any thoughts? Any hope?

[jgweed]

Hopefully the GOP will realise that it needs to rethink its dependence upon a base that is becoming more and more irrelevant to modern thought, and cease to alienate Blacks, Hispanics, gays, and youth. If it doesn't, its hundred members will end up holding its conventions in the central hall of the Creationist Museum.

[Didymos Thomas]

The Republican party has never represented libertarians. Ever.

That said, the GOP is in trouble. If they plan to run Palin in '12, the party is doomed. BrightNoon, you're absolutely right to be worried about the party killing itself by over attachment to social conservatism. Palin, an extreme social conservative, would be a giant set back for the GOP.

Hopefully the party will move closer to Ron Paul. I'd like to see the GOP actually begin to represent some libertarian notions for once, instead of just making the claim. I like Paul for the GOP because he brings in so many young voters, much like Obama has done for the DNC.

[BrightNoon]

Yea, I worry about Palin too. If you watched McCain's concession speach he made some comments about her continuing to serve 'not only Alaska but the nation:' very troubling. Ron Paul has indeed been unique amoung GOP candidates in his appeal to the young and his use of the internet. Early in the race, before Obama aqcuired his divinity, Paul had actually raised more money and organized more volunteers online than any candidate ever. However, I disagree that republicans have never represented libertarian principles, at least the economic, though that is now a distant memory. Herbert Hoover was probably the first to break decisively with the old laizze faire tradition, though Roosevelt did somewhat in his anti-trust activities. I think the rise, unspectacular as its been, of the libertarian and constitutionalists at alia has been the direct result of the corruption of the party in which they were once included and by which they were once represented. Of course, as we've debated in other threads, your right in the sense that an ideal libertarian system has never existed of been the platform of the GOP, but at one time, they were pretty close.

I wonder though, considering the demographics of the country, the media and the culture of progressivism, the principles of which are apparently no longer able to seriously criticized, if a republican party based on libertarian princples, and without the religious right or the hard core neocons, could even gather a sizable minority. When the house republicans turned down the first 'rescue package,' I thought I saw a glimmer of hope. But really, I think they acted because of the angry calls of constituents, who mostly were angry because they weren't getting the same kind of help as wallstreet!

Anyway, I guess we'll never know what potential this movement has until it can be disassociated from the GOP, which consumes all its energy, but fails to achieve anything in its interest.

[Pangloss]

I think it is quite clear that at the national level, both the Democratic and Republican parties are for big government. They might as well just merge at this point and become the "new federalist party"; they can quibble over non-issues like abortion, gay marriage, who to tax more, and in what way to spend massive amounts of money. But a reform of the republican party will not help anything.

I do not think we will ever see real change in this country until one of the current big parties collapses altogether and a new one comes in, or until a third party (like the libertarian) can actually gain ground. This of course will probably not ever happen because the democratic and republican parties are in bed with corporate america, and there will never be enough funds to support a campaign for something like the libertarian movement, which fundamentally represents a decrease in the power of government, and thus a decrease in power of the politicians, interest groups, and corporations who gain from maintaining that power (and who will not financially support a political philosophy that works to the contrary).

I personally am an independent and don't give a damn about the republican party. I would say that I am generally libertarian/conservative on political issues, but in saying this I do not identify with most of the current values that are held by the republican party.

[Mr. Fight the Power]

There are two possibilities as I see it.

1. People become increasingly dissatisfied with the present parties and begin to flock towards alternate choices. Technology today has made grassroots and startup political movements more possible than ever, so I could see this happening. This causes either the parties to become more representative or alternative parties to become more prominent. In this case I welcome the ineptitude of the current political parties.

2. People become increasingly dissatisfied with the current state of affairs, but also become more and more terrified of the opposing candidates. I can see this in the republican party this year. Few really liked McCain, but thanks to conservative talking points, they also saw Obama as a socialistic anti-Christ. In this case it might be time to abandon this country and let them suffer under the bull**** system that it has earned.

[BrightNoon]

Pangloss, we are in total agreement. Let me clarify; I despise the current GOP as much as the democratic party, perhaps more, as at least the democrats are honest about their goals. The only reason that I even suggest reforming the GOP, as opposed to creating a new party entirely, is that the GOP already has the needed fame and credibility (in terms of being able to actually win elections, unlike the libertarians). I think a new name might be in order though; could be as simple as The New Republican Party, just to make it known that change is come, but to retain some link with the 'heroic past.' I think this is unlikely of course. I hope that Obama is extremely liberal and passes all kinds of New New Deal legislation and that the GOP offers Sara Palin as their 2012 candidate, only because, hopefully, there will then be a rebelllion in the party, maybe a rival candidate, maybe Ron Paul...

[Pangloss]

Originally Posted by Mr. Fight the Power

In this case it might be time to abandon this country and let them suffer under the bull**** system that it has earned.

Unfortunately, the politicians at this level and the wealthy elite will prosper while everyone else suffers. There will not be a time to abandon this country, but I fear there may be a time not long off where the people will have to fall back on their 2nd amendment right to arm themselves and take back Washington in the only way that might be possible.

Then again, there was little outcry against the outright robbery that was the bailout bill...I wonder how many people have actually taken the time to read through it. If everyone in this country had done so, and had understood what they were reading, they might have taken to the streets in protest. But politics have become one of a million forms of entertainment for the masses, and people fail to notice what the man behind the curtain is doing as they stare in awe at the spectacle of it all.

[Didymos Thomas]

I say the GOP never represented libertarian views because, even when the party was caught up in laissez faire ideas, instead of actually allowing the market to run it's course the GOP was nothing more than of paid lackeys representing bloated corporations. They were aggressive Social Darwinians more than anything else.

I do think a sizable minority can be organized under libertarian ideas. Those ideas would have to take on a progressive image, though. Libertarian populism, if that makes any sense. Paul, as you point out, was at one point far ahead of all other candidates as far as money and grassroots support is concerned. A large portion of his support coming from the youth shows that the future holds immense potential for libertarianism if marketed in the proper way.

Oh, and the Second Amendment is obsolete. The idea is that an armed population can rise up against the government - but how are shotguns and hunting rifles, or even automatic machine guns, going to stand up against tanks and modern aircraft. The Second Amendment no longer protects the people's ability to violently resist the government. It's a shame, too.

[Mr. Fight the Power]

Originally Posted by BrightNoon

Pangloss, we are in total agreement. Let me clarify; I despise the current GOP as much as the democratic party, perhaps more, as at least the democrats are honest about their goals. The only reason that I even suggest reforming the GOP, as opposed to creating a new party entirely, is that the GOP already has the needed fame and credibility (in terms of being able to actually win elections, unlike the libertarians). I think a new name might be in order though; could be as simple as The New Republican Party, just to make it known that change is come, but to retain some link with the 'heroic past.' I think this is unlikely of course. I hope that Obama is extremely liberal and passes all kinds of New New Deal legislation and that the GOP offers Sara Palin as their 2012 candidate, only because, hopefully, there will then be a rebelllion in the party, maybe a rival candidate, maybe Ron Paul...

You are only asking a sell-out party to sell-out again. A party of principle is needed, otherwise it will simply abandon libertarian principles when prudent. Unfortunately a party of principle can't exist.