The Right-Wing “Rift” and the Wormtongues Who Want It
Dana Loesch has an excellent post at Big Journalism today about the war the left really wants to see between Christian conservatives and libertarians (via Instapundit)
Coalitions between different groups who have various beliefs in common are instrumental to success. We can’t disrespect, by way of discounting or misunderstanding our different sticking points, the beliefs of the various groups comprising the tea party movement, but we all have more in common with each other than we do with factions on the left: the communists, the socialists, the say-they’re-anarchists-but-are-actually-socialists. We know that the only way to securing increased civil liberties comes by way of our alliance and we must continue to hold the line and work together.
The groups on the right have accomplished so much by working together and I’m very much looking forward to seeing what all else we can accomplish, Newsweek be damned.
I have no doubt that the left and their accomplices in the media want to spread the perception that there really is a serious rift in the coalition that routed them on Election Day. I don’t blame them. The coalition that exists is not a particularly strong one. Right now, it’s forged by the common cause of staving off fiscal armageddon, but it’s so fragile that a chance phrase thrown off in the middle of an interview amplified by a few opportunistic ideologues can strain it badly. The truth of the matter is that most political coalitions aren’t particularly strong when they are first forged and that the most efficient way to attack them is not with an open, honest debate with facts and reason and all those things we say we like in politics. If you want to break an alliance, be it a marriage or a pact between nations in wartime, the most effective weapon is distrust. J.R.R. Tolkien knew it, which is why he put Grima Wormtongue in The Lord of the Rings. Theoden would never have bowed to a naked show of force, but those sly words of mistrust that poisoned him against Gondor, that weakened his fighting spirit and caused him to neglect Rohan, very nearly worked. Now, we don’t have a Gandalf to throw Wormtongue’s influence out of our heads all at once. We’ll have to handle that ourselves.
We start by facing facts. Libertarians don’t trust, or particularly like, social conservatives and vice-versa. There are plenty of good reasons that’s so, but none of them have anything to do with the pressing fiscal issues of the day. Each sides’ pet social issues can wait a year or so until we get a real and lasting handle on Washington’s spending and get some people in office who we won’t have to watch like a toddler in a toy store. To do that, we’re all going to have to extend some trust on credit and make darned sure we don’t betray that trust. If not, we’ll end up with more progressive hopenchange and, like the man freed of the “unclear spirit” in Matthew 12:43-45, we’ll find ourselves in a much worse condition than when we started. Trust is easy to lose and difficult to gain, especially with the Wormtongue media whispering words of betrayal in our ears and the Democratic Party driving divisive social issues into the public square. Let’s just keep our eyes on the prize and stop listening to the folks who want us to fail.
Related posts:
- A Truce on Social Issues Makes Sense. America Said So.
- The Right-Wing Hate Machine Claims Another Vic…Oh, What? Well Never Mind.
- Right-Wing Blog Coordination? Yeah, Like I Have Time for That.
- I’m A Rotten Right-Wing Violence-Monger.
Category: Oh, THAT liberal media., The Republican Minority
About the Author (Author Profile)
Subscribe
If you enjoyed this article, subscribe to receive more just like it.
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Jimmie, Robert Bise. Robert Bise said: RT @jimmiebjr New Post: The Right-Wing "Rift" and the Wormtongues Who Want It http://bit.ly/hnfoBa #truth [...]
I thought your post was well-done and illuminating. However, I have a nit to pick with you… It comes from this statement:
Libertarians don’t trust, or particularly like, social conservatives and vice-versa.
I beg your pardon. This is simply fatuous. Perhaps you need to look up the word 'trust'. The Libertarians I know, I trust. Specifically, I trust them to act like, well, Libertarians and darned if they don't. The same goes for social conservatives.
Unlike the left, most social conservatives and most Libertarians I know simply view leftists as wrong. By contrast, leftists view people with whom they disagree as bad people. Your fatuous statement about not liking one another smacks of lefty-think and serves no one.
If there is one characteristic that the various factions on the right share, it's a world-view ordered to principle, not emotion. We may disagree on these principles. For example, as a social conservative you can bet your bippy I'll fight the Libertarian tooth and nail over abortion and the state's obligation to protect all life. But the disagreement is one of principle, not emotion. Whether I like my opponent is irrelevant to me. Indeed, at the end of the day I will quite look forward to toasting those folks on the right with whom I disagree.
Cheers,
I take your point. I should have expanded on that, but the post was already running long and I didn't want to spend the time I probably should have on it.
I meant, really, that the two sides don't like nor trust each other politically. I don't imagine they ever will.
"J.R.R. Tolkien knew it, which is why he put Grima Wormtongue in The Lord of the Rings. Theoden would never have bowed to a naked show of force, but those sly words of mistrust that poisoned him against Gondor, that weakened his fighting spirit and caused him to neglect Rohan, very nearly worked. Now, we don’t have a Gandalf to throw Wormtongue’s influence out of our heads all at once. We’ll have to handle that ourselves."
Ummm….ok.
Okay, what?
Libertarians keep making the same offer, just acting like they're backing up and becoming more reasonable, while in actuality changing nothing.
"If you don't like this dress for five dollars, I'll cut you a break. I'll sell it for five hundred pennies. What a deal. Well, how about fifty dimes, then?"
Um, no.
You want victory? You need the socons. You don't need the libertarians.
Wormtongue's been whispering all right. He keeps telling the socons to shut up, or not this year, or maybe some other time. He speaks with cold contempt when he has the power, or so he thinks, but when he realizes that he doesn't, then he pretends to a decent courtesy.
The Libertarians have long been servants of the RINOs, chopping off the socons from behind, and pretending concern as a concern troll does to their faces. The RINOs, like Saruman, do not see that Evil can be confronted and destroyed, that Mordor is an illusion built of fear and madness and hate.
The only question to ask: Will you stand firm for the whole of Conservatism, or will you join the Socialists?
Rohan!!
I disagree with you entirely. If we're going to win this budget fight, we're going to need both groups.
And no one's been whispering for the social con's to shut up. Heck, they've been the loudest group in the conservative coalition for at least twenty years.
Fiscal conservatives need to keep making the case that the smaller the government the less immoral behavior it can encourage. Don't like the art exhibit at the Smithsonian? Fine, we'll get the government out of the art funding biz. Win-Win.
That's a good point, SDN. I think fiscal irresponsibility is, at its core, a moral issue. Perhaps that's the beginning of a more lasting coalition.
Jimmie,
I've probably seen dozens of articles which were basically 'You socons need to be quiet for now so we don't alienate the moderates'. S.E. Cup wrote one a couple weeks back. They come out every few weeks, guy, and by relatively major players.
And then you have the vastly more numerous folk who run around on comments and shout for socons to shut up. And this is on conservative sites, not on DKOS.
As to needing Libertarians….I remember reading a political organizer who said….
1. Country clubbers provided money and a place…important.
2. Socons provided manpower and enthusiasm….very important.
3. Libertarians stood around and complained that things were'n't perfect.
He said from what he'd heard nothing had changed in the years since health made him stop.
And there's way more socons than libertarians.
And Prop 8 was more popular in California than the Republicans who were weighed down by libertarianism (and to be fair by RINOs).
Its not an equal partnership. We're not Gondor, and you Rohan.
Our side is Gandalf and your side is Peregrine Took, Guard of Gondor.
I don't insist like some Libertarians do to socons, I don't say the Libertarians should be kicked out of the Party.
I think you'll find the latter was worse for the GOP than the former. Libertarians aren't the ones holding the Republicans back in California. their own horrible state party does that just fine.
I really don't know where to classify myself on this. When I face the public, I know I'm speaking to those who believe, those who do not believe, and those who believe something entirely else. If I have something to say, I must say it to the people in front of me in terms that make sense to them (1 Corinthians 9:19-23).
You cannot make people believe as you do. Your position must be logical, reasonable, and supported by as much evidence as can be gathered, without reference to your most heartfelt beliefs. You must make sense. And above all, you must leave room for doubt, whether you have it or not.
I don't disagree with any of that. Alas in politics, we do let emotion get the best of us sometimes, and that leads to mistrust and a lot of trouble.
This makes perfect sense. If you're against abortion you are allowed to keep voting, just make sure that the people who you are voting for won't vote against abortion until the libertarians say it's ok. "Pressing issues" first. "Pet" issues later. The libertarians (the pro-abortion ones that is) will let us know when we're allowed to engage in political activity again. Until that time comes people who are against abortion (including the libertarians for life) have no right to engage in political action against abortion. This is the very fair way to make sure there's no inappropriate conflict between people who are against abortion and libertarians. I can't argue with this very fair arrangement, but I do have a question. Why did you guys wait until after we voted to tell us this?
Geez, Roger, overreact much?
I'll post a simple question to you. Of the social or fiscal issues, which has gotten more serious Congressional action from the GOP in the past, say, ten years? I'll give you a hint: we have the DOMA but not a balanced budget amendment, though the latter has been on the GOP's radar screen for much longer.
Go read Simon over at Classical Values. Even the Loesch post gets twisted into something unrecognizable. He said in a recent post he'd help socialists win before allowing socons a seat at the table. Don't really know how to work w/ someone like that.
You tell us you're offering us this very fair deal. Out of the kindness of your heart you're going to let us keep our principles, as long as we adopt your priorities. The whole bizarre tone of this frequent libertarian theme is that you are somehow doing us a favor. And then you're annoyed that we don't take your condescension as a compliment. Telling other people what to do is not the way to avoid conflict. And now you're telling me I've adopted an inappropriate tone. I think my tone is about right for your post. Besides, you've made it pretty clear that you didn't like or trust me before I posted anything.
It's interesting that you're projecting a demand where none has been made, Roger. I'm not quite sure how you get from what I wrote to what you apparently think I wrote.
Like I said, both sides are going to have to extend some trust. That begins with honesty.
As to your question, elect candidates who agree with you and you can get whatever you want considered in Congress. If you want the Constitution amended you're going to have to get a lot of people elected because that's designed to be a difficult process. Run, support and elect politicians who say they want abortion to be legal, the legal definition of marriage to be changed, and the Constitution amended with the balanced budget amendment, if that's what you believe. People who tell the electorate (before election day) that they're against abortion actually win elections. If candidates with your platform don't win, I don't see why that means politicians with a different platform have to vote your way.
Sorry, Tennwriter, you simply mouthed exactly what the "progressives" want. Jimmie is right.
Social conservatives are not even a majority in *either* major party, though they do tend to volunteer in Republican get-out-the-vote efforts 3 times more than their percentage of the Republican Party would imply. *Your* neighborhood may be dominated by social conservatives, but I can tell you that places like Oregon are not! The belt from Portland to Eugene dominates the state, and it is massively statist and Left/class bigot. The Left Coast *is* different than interior states. It is often worse elsewhere.
Without a willingness to rally libertarians, there will be *no* effective resistance to financial insolvency, because only 20 percent of the Republican Party can win far too few elections. That's all SoCons were in the last stats I saw.
Once financial insolvency, and the statism that will potentiate, is in place for the US, most of what social conservatives differ with libertarians on will be dust in the statist wind. My libertarian attitudes are accepted by SoCon friends as my own, and we can work together on the financial attitudes we share.
Why do you see that as wrong? Is it "If abortion, or marriage, or take-your-pick social cause is not at the top of the priority list of any coalition,then it is useless to me",…?
If that is the case, then you are lost to any coalition that can win and sustain a national legislative majority, much less the Presidency.
Regards,
Tom Billings
Some of you are doing a great job of illustrating my point about mistrust and dislike.
Have any of you guys been to a TEA Party rally? Have you been to any TEA Party meetings? The TEA Party leaders, and the others involved, have their heads screwed on straight. At these meetings you have a plethora of ideas floating around. You're not called stupid because you present an idea that isn't to well received. You have people involved of different political persuasions and they TALK. They have, pretty much, the same goals. SMALLER government; LOWER taxes; STRONG military; REDUCED spending. It's outsiders who are trying to inject the social issues into the fiscal mix. If we can return the power to our local and state representatives, many of the social issues will take care of themselves. Outsiders will continue to attempt to divide TEA Party advocates, but, I believe it's not going to work.
I don't need the MSM to tell me that libertarians are unwelcome in today's GOP. I'll just check in with Mike Huckabee: The real threat to the Republican Party is something we saw a lot of this past election cycle: libertarianism masked as conservatism.
The same Mike Huckabee wants to change the Constitution to meet "God's standards".
This libertarian voted for divided government in November, not for the GOP. It will be a loooong time before I again trust anything the Republicans, especially the socons, tell me.
Jimmie, I have a better idea: considering the relative numbers, why don't LIBERTARIANS volunteer to zip thier lips and compromise their beliefs until after the election?
DaveP, I'll ask you the same thing I asked Roger. What part of "both sides" don't you understand?
Well, Jimmie, I read it again and still think the point of this post is that I'm supposed to give up on my "pet social issues" until you say it's ok, and I'm supposed to like it, and, by the way, you don't like or trust me. I, by the way, like and trust plenty of libertarians. I wouldn't be offended if some libertarian ran saying he wanted to keep abortion legal, won the election and then voted after the election to keep abortion legal. Libertarians seem to be different. For them it's ok if some guy runs saying he's against same sex marriage and for the balanced budget amendment, as long as after the election he doesn't vote against same sex marriage. I just don't get why politicians should drop the issues they adopted before the election in order to avoid offending libertarians after the election.
No, Roger, that's not it at all. What I'm saying is that both sides will have to put their pet causes on hold for a year or two. Both sides. What about that is difficult to understand?
"Some of you are doing a great job of illustrating my point about mistrust and dislike.
"
Heh. Yep. Do some of you even hear yourselves?
Can we at least agree to band together to reduce the size, scope and cost of government and get some concrete results…before we start slitting each others throats over 'abortion' or some other divisive issue?
- Something tells me by 2012, political differences are going to be the last thing on the public's mind. The numbers came out today. Unemployment slid up to 9.8%.
- Nice shiny differences are only affordable in decent economic times.
- Hellofajob Barry!
Well I never had much respect for family values. You know: the Mommy Staters on the Left or the Daddy Staters on the Right.
Fragile coalition? What exactly do libertarians have in common with the Staters of the Right or the left. It is not the Religion. It is not the projects – I'd be glad to help any in the private sector do them.
It is big government. And more government. And if "Conservatives" want that they are just contributing to another TSA. As one wag in some comments elsewhere put it: "they are treating regular people like dope dealers". And who most likes putting the hammer down on dope dealers? Well the dopers were just a warm up you fools.
Then, I'll ask you the same question I've asked you before, Tennwriter. When was this mythic sea-change election that conservatives won by espousing social conservatism as their main plank?
As for libertarianism and limited government, I can point to '80, '94 and '10.
If you're so much more numerous and so much more important, when has your side won us an election?
@Tennwriter,
When you find that what you write is no different than what a leftist agent-provocateur, a leftist Wormtongue, would write to help divide the right, perhaps you should rethink things.
Now, if you want honesty, there are plenty of self-labeled "libertarians" who have hatred of anyone religious, anyone from the South, or anyone on the right in general. However, these people tend to actually be leftists who think because they believe in drug legalization, they can call themselves "libertarian". (the Bill Maher types)
Don't be fooled. These people all voted for Obama. They'll even vote for him again if they get the chance.
Genuine Libertarians can never hate someone or look down on someone for having an individual moral code. It's practically the definition of being a Libertarian.
Remember, when one side of a political debate is being driven by rabid hatred, it's practically a guarantee that the one foaming at the mouth is a leftist.
Us on the right can have legitimate, reasoned debate. And we should make it goal that someday, debate among the controlling majority in Washington DC will be between libertarians and moral conservatives – rather than socialists and flat-out Communists fighting over the last soyburger ration as the nation collapses.
The "I'm taking my ball and going home" attitude will guarantee the latter.
The "I'm taking my ball and going home" attitude when the game is in the ninth inning, you've pulled an amazing 6-run rally to tie the score, your team is up to bat, there are no outs, and the bases are loaded because the opposing pitcher has just walked the last 3 batters, and nobody is warming up in the relief pen…
Well, that's just insane.
If you want the Constitution amended you’re going to have to get a lot of people elected because that’s designed to be a difficult process.
It is not hard to do. Note that we have Drug Prohibition without a Drug Prohibition Amendment. It seems a bit, shall we say, peculiar? And goes relatively unremarked except for a few cranks.
I look to be hearing more about this new fangled Constitution thingie from my Conservative friends. Real soon. Hi Tennwriter.
If the libertarians are the "servants of the RINOs", has it occurred to you to ask yourself exactly why it is that once they've abandoned conservative principles in office, the RINOs always opt to rally social conservatives, rather than libertarians, at election time?
The most important issue for me and most tea-partiers is that we limit the over-reach of government. We recognize that many republicans cannot be trusted on this issue once they are in power, even though they are still better than the democrats. Despite all the good things about George Bush, he let us down here too.
Right now, the social issues represent a kabuki between dems and repubs – dems tell people the repubs are going into their bedroom and banning all abortions and marijuana, and repubs tell people the dems are going to rename christmas and ban competitive sports. We are not going to play that game any more.
First step is to continue to try to change the republicans from the inside. So far its worked out well for all of us.
The notion that libertarians are somehow on bad terms with "social conservatives" is incredibly over-simplified, and actually exposes a split within the ranks of the social conservatives themselves. Libertarians are on EXCELLENT terms with 2nd amendment activists, being rather hardcore on the issue.
Are gun rights somehow not a "social issue"? Seems like the social conservatives whose concerns relate somehow to sex wish they weren't.
As far as abortion, pro-life attitudes are quite common in libertarian circles, for all that they're a large minority. Enough so that the Libertarian party had regular platform fights on the subject back when I was still active in it. The real break point on that subject is actually early vs late term abortions. You don't find many pro-life libertarians who care about early abortions, and essentially none who object to birth control. I suppose because libertarians tend to be pro-life based on a perception of where person-hood begins, and few of us approach that question from a religious, rather than biological, perspective.
Really, I'd say the split liberals are trying to drive a wedge into here isn't between libertarians and social conservatives. It's between economic and social conservatives. Liberals just identify the former as "libertarians" because they're incredibly hostile to libertarians, and just assume that identifying economic conservatives as libertarians will help make social conservatives reject them.
Whatever you think yourself, if you are for government spending less you damns sure better be in this fight. And this fight is going to last substantially longer than one year, try 3-6 for starters.
If you can't be in this fight because you don't like the social mores of the person standing next to you then you are really just a poseur who likes to talk fiscal sanity but doesn't truly value it.
Socons will be socons, libertarians will be libertarians. Neither is going to change the other but both had better be in this fight to win because the alternative would mean defeat for both.
OK, here is some honesty. While "Social conservatives are not even a majority is *either* major party…" may be true social conservative issues get people into voting booths year after year whether the economy is good or bad. Or do you forget the overwhelming votes against homosexual marriage in state after state (including those oh-so-different Left Coast states)? While social conservatives may not be an overwhelming majority they do outnumber libertarians, and by a lot. Us SoCons also organize better and more consistently, get out the vote better (as you mention ), have better long-term goals, and raise more money.
So when I see articles such as 'Will social conservative snatch defeat from the jaws of victory?' explaining why SoCons need to ignore their issues, or the other articles linked here, the 'tea party' letter, all asking the SoCons to shut up and wait….
What? Oh, no one has told the SoCons to shut up? That's not what a heck of a lot of people think. Do a quick google and you'll find a lot of people, including a lot of libertarians, think that SoCons are being told to shut up.
That's fine; keep focusing on fiscal issues since they need fixing and you'll probably do fine. But keep ignoring social issues and see how long your majority lasts. SoCons have proven that if there is no one that supports our issues we simply don't vote. Ask McCain.
The conservative coalitiuon is a bargain. We, that is, econocons, neocons, theocons, and just plain traditionalists have made a deal with one another the defer to our coalition-mates in treir respective areas of greatest concern. It's "I'll give you low taxes, you give me the lives of the unborn; I'll give you the GWOT, you give me the RKBA."
We all have different things which matter most to us. "Where your treasure is, there will your heart be also," as George W. Bush's favorite philosopher put it. Remember, we're up against a machine of government leeches who depend on tax-spend-elect for their daily bread. We can't possibly prevail against that kind of interest if we all go off into our own little worlds.
Social Conservatism IS Fiscal Conservatism.
They are two sides of the same coin. There can be no fiscal restraint w/o social constraint. The pathologies that are driving our nanny state into bankruptcy are a creation of the liberal idea that we're not reponsible for our own mistakes.
I don't care what people do w/ their lives provided it doesn't take money, or freedoms, away from me and mine. Liberal, as well as a libertarian, anything goes outlook encourages the irresponsible behavior that ultimately requires gov. assitance.
The rift between socon and ficon is therefore an invention and unnecessary. We need to rise above and put the backbiting between us in the rearview mirror.
It seems to me that Jimmie has it right on the merits. The greater danger that we're currently facing is still a possible worldwide economic collapse, or at the least, a ten year or greater period of economic stagnation. I doubt that any of the commentators here experienced the Great Depression, and I don't think any of us are truly prepared for an economic disaster of that scale. This isn't to say that I'm certain such a disaster will happen, but I believe the possibility still exists. And that possibility is what we need to work together to prevent right now.
I never thought this hilarious, ex-nihilo manufactured controversy would work when I saw it in that WaPo editorial until I read some of these comment threads in the last few days.
Social issues are so unbelievably unimportant right now that the English language is insufficient to describe them. "Distant galaxy" and "electron microscope" come to mind. Not to mention that half of the supposed adherents to libertarianism and social conservatism don't even know what those philosophies entail.
Basically, it boils down to this: if so-called "social conservatives" won't vote for a candidate because they "don't trust him" or if libertarians won't vote for a candidate because she seems to believe in Jesus too much, they both deserve four more years of Obama's America. Don't be surprised if the country doesn't make it through all four, though.
off. not of
Or perhaps libertarians mistrust of what social conservatives might do is lower than libertarians mistrust of what progressives have actually done.
Perhaps that will happen, Charles, but it's certainly not the case now.
Jimmie,
Right now the pet cause of Libertarians is to get Socons to shut up, and to stave off financial disaster. So, again, and again….its Socons Shut UP!
Um, no.
Hitnrun,
Which is worse? A very nice, empty house gets burnt down, or the family inside gets killed by a carbon monoxide leak? Both are obviously very bad, and as a Socon I oppose both quite fervently, but the murder of the unborn is more important than hyperinflation or whatever other madness King Obama wants to inflict on us.
Now a Socon dominated Congress would stop both. It would exercise fiscal responsibility, which is after all, just a form or subset of moral responsibility.
Jimmie,
You point out that RINOs are more to blame than Libertarians in California. Possibly so.
Let's look at the Great White Hope, Arnold Schwarzanegger. This is a guy with a LOT of good will. I like him, watched most of his movies, some of them twice and thrice.
He billed himself as Purple. He's a Fiscon not a Socon. He's gone down in infamy.
Perhaps if we'd had a real conservative, not a RINO, it might have worked. Now the folks in Cali think R's are stupes, and so they choose Moonbeam-D. Great job, fiscons, great job. (:
DaveP makes an excellent point. One suspects a lot of Libertarians would do far better if they took a few days to pretend on the Net to be Socons. And then they found out how rude and overbearing their fellow Libertarians are.
Les Nessman, this is the same arguement that Jimmie is making, and its wrong for the same reasons.
M. Simon, ah, my old enemy.
Have you rejoined the Democratic Party yet?
Bill Dalasio, Aquineas Dad answers your first question better than I could.
As to the second, well, there are a LOT more socons than libertarians. What Libertarians do is attack the socons as a chihuahua attacks a strong man carrying a heavy load. Its evidence that libertarians hate socons more than they love freedom, or that libertarians don't think clearly.
Roger Conley, you betcha!
Brett Bellmore,
2A, border fence, low taxes, reducing welfare….these are all socon issues. Socons are the Base. Its just some people are single issue voters.
Lou Gots, and the Libertarians are always trying to break that bargain.
Michael Celani, very nice.
Larry L,
If its such a great danger, then you won't mind agreeing with me, right? Or as Instapundit puts it about enviromentalists jetting in vast hordes to some eco-globull worming CONference….I'll believe it when the people in charge start acting like they believe it.
Its fairly simple folks. Simple enough that even a lefty troll on Riehl World View got it. Spout on about abortion and fiscal responsibility until you're in charge, then govern differently. That's the RINO way. Wham, bam, thank you ma'am with not even a box of chocolates.
And Libertarians abet this process, perhaps not meaning too (he said charitably) by getting in the way of Socons they end up helping RINOs. So, if Socons have to kick out the Libertarians so as to get at the Main Enemy, the Great Satan, well so be it.
Or, you could, you know, accept that you're a junior partner in this endeavor, get a junior partner's rewards when we kick down the door and make the RINOs leave town in a veil of feathers and a coat of tar.
Either way. But, Jimmie, I'm going to have to refuse your well-meant retread of an offer. Thank you for thinking of us, but we don't want it.
Tennwriter, that is simply not true. By digging in your heels and throwing what is essentially a temper tantrum that you would be asked to give up your entitlement to Rublican power, you become part of the problem. Stop being part of the problem.
I skipped a few on purpose, but I didn't mean to skip Level 3.
You sound like a nice guy. Unfortunately a lot of your friends aren't nice guys. I wish there were more Libertarians like you.
And your vision of the Future is one I've had…
In 2035, the Democratic Party is long toast. The Second Era of Good Feelings is in play with something pretty close to one party rule, but the internal strains keep on rising. Off on the far Left, the descendants of that nutty linguist are being hunted down by the FBI as they express their rage with terror strikes.
And the New Libertarian Party splits from the Republican Party. The Republican Party, as the more established group continues to run things mostly…but the NLP has a vigorous and powerful opposition, and occasionally gets a President in, or wins the House.
By 2060, the impact of time and power has produced a great deal of corruption in the once purified R party, and we have a power shift where the NLP becomes the dominant party.
Except, all I can see from Aquineas Dad is an insistance that social conservatives can be a spoiler. The reality, whether you like it or not, is that social conservatism simply doesn't capture the public's imagination. You can't put together a governing coalition around social conservatism, so you're kidding yourself if you think you can cast off libertarians. On the other hand, when the conservative coalition preaches limited government and individual liberty, it wins. If I'm wrong, then I welcome you and I welcome Aquineas Dad to show me all these victories the conservative cause has won focusing on social conservatism.
Jimmie,
Am not.
You are part of the problem.
Bill,
You challenge me, and make me think.
AD already showed you one loonngg victory. Or is 30-0 not worthy of being mentioned?
Are you accepting AD's premise that Libertarians are vastly smaller and less organized than Socons? Part of the problem here is that Libertarians are living in a Fantasy Land where they are more important than Socons. Some few of the more grounded think they are equal. Reality disagrees.
Your thesis has two problems. First, you see this as a unilateral demand. It is not and I have explicitly said it is not. Second, you illustrate perfectly the mistrust I have said is the problem that will cause this alliance to fly apart, gaining the country exactly nothing.
Go back and read my post. Show me where I said socons have to give up something for nothing. Show me where I said libertarians are demanding anything. If you can do that, your thesis will have a leg on which to stand, but you can't because I never said, or even intimated either thing.
I also note that the question I asked earlier about the socon priorities for the past twenty years has gone unanswered. That's very telling.
Tennwriter,
What long victory? What 30? What 0? I'm not trying to be dismissive, but I really don't see what you're getting at?
Organized, self-identified libertarians? Almost certainly. People who identify with libertarian themes and priorities? Cato identifies them as about 20-25% of the population:
http://www.cato.org/pubs/policy_report/v29n1/cpr2… http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/libertarian-voters…
That matters. A lot. It means conservatives are able to double their strength sticking with themes of limited government and individual freedom. It explains why social conservatives can think of libertarians as "a chihuahua" within the conservative movement, only to find that the "strong man" isn't able to win elections and the "chihuahua" is.
Let me throw out an additional point. Yes, I'm confronting social conservatives here quite a bit. But, I consider this an internacine dispute among ideological kindred. Social conservatives and libertarians are not and should not be at war. As much as some social conservatives may whinge about libertarians "telling them to shut up", in practice, most libertarians are more than happy to support a social conservative like a Jim DeMint or a Tom Coburn who seem genuinely interested in limiting the size and scope of government. What they object to is the notion held by too many social conservatives that, even when the conservative movement wins elections on libertarian themes, libertarians are just along for the ride. That, unless libertarians check their opinions at the door and support social conservatives and only social conservatives for the leadership of the movement, social conservatives are somehow or another being told to sit down and shut up. The most recent elections were a mandate on the size and scope of government. I think libertarians and social conservatives have a lot to work on with that. Many are sceptical when they see social conservatives who played little or no role in the recent victory (coughcoughConcernedWomenofAmericacoughcough) come around and declare that the victory was as much about social issues as economic ones and that we all need to stick together in support of their agenda, much of which has little if any bearing on what the recent victory was actually about.
Jimmie, It seems to me that your deal is that the libertarians get to pick what the libertarian pet causes are and they get to tell the social conservatives what the social conservative pet causes are. I don't think assigning priorities to others is going to work. I also think a politician's positions after an election should match the positions the voters were told about before the election. One member of Congress can vote against ethanol subsidies and against abortion. Another can vote against ethanol subsidies and for abortion. Why do social conservative politicians have to vote your way? The only reason I can come up with is that if social conservative politicians vote the way they told the voters they'd vote, (some) libertarians get their feelings hurt. You say we can't support our issues and your issues. Why not?
Les N and hitnrun say my issues are unimportant. That's fine. They can believe whatever they believe. But why should I adopt their priorities? Because they said so?
ThomasD, Yes you're right. Many libertarians are pro-life, and often better pro-lifers than I am. I really like the Libertarians for Life website. And I don't think libertarian pro-lifers are as squishy as you do. You bring in birth control, of all things. Are there libertarians who want the government to provide birth control? Are there social conservatives who want to make birth control illegal?
Look at it this way, Roger. Both libertarians and social conservatives consider fiscal matters like the deficit, the size of government, and the level of taxation important, just not as important as other things. What I'm suggesting is that both sides lay down the issues they consider more important than those to work together as a large and powerful group to get real results on the issues on which they agree. How, exactly, is that controversial? Why are we even arguing that proposition when it is manifestly to the advantage of all of us?
Jimmie,
I know what you've said. I disagree.
You want the Libertarians to give up something not even in play, so that the Socon will give up his essential nature, and you call that bilateral? That is something for nothing. You repeat the same demand that's been said a hundred times in major fora this last year alone.
I'm supposed to prove to you that you're demanding something. OK, well, let's just call it suggesting…as in you're suggesting Socons put their social values to the side for a year or two. And if we don't, it will be a disaster. Now some might call that a demand.
And Libertarians have earned that mistrust. You want us to trust Libertarians. Have them show themselves worthy of trust.
But this is not so much anger and mistrust as the arguement that Socons do not need Libertarians. We're vastly larger, more energetic, and more realistic. Arguably our timidity, our search for approval, has been our downfall.
The Tea Party has shown the way.
If we go out enthused, the media will attack (but they'd attack anyways), and we will bring the independents and moderates to us with our joy and hope. If, on the other hand, we listen to the Libertarians, we will go out sad, and the independents will see our dour faces, and think to themselves…hmmm, this guy doesn't really like his thing, why should I?
With this, you strengthen my point. The Tea Parties were composed overwhelmingly of Evangelical Christians or, in other words, social conservatives. But the Tea Party movements were concentrated almost solely on fiscal issues. The hotter social issues like abortion were not on the radar screen at tea party gatherings. That wasn't because they weren't important to a good number of the attendees but that they decided to put them aside temporarily to deal with an issue they saw as more pressing.
Your assertion that social conservatives are quiet wallflowers who have suppressed their desires for lo these many years is, well, laughable. Social conservatives, over the past 20 years, ahve gotten plenty of Congressional action on abortion issues and the Defense of Marriage Act. A full-fledged constitutional amendment on the definition of marriage has been attempted at least three times that I can recall. What issues of great import to libertarians have gotten even a fraction of that attention? Marijuana legalization? Rollback of the PATRIOT Act? Reduction of the size or scope of the DHS? The militarization of local police departments thanks to federal grants? The War on Drugs? None of these have gotten a scintilla of the action the social conservatives top issues have gotten and you simply can't say otherwise and work inside the realm of reality.
So, you've admitted that your main contention — that libertarians are demanding something of social conservatives — is wrong. Then, you've given me a perfect example of how social conservatives have done exactly what I suggested they do. So far as I'm concerned, you demolished your own argument.
Illuminate me on this 'past twenty years' thing, if you would.
Social Conservatism IS Fiscal Conservatism.
I keep hearing that. It probably explains why Mike Huckabee is a big spender. Heh.
The deal is: when RINOs need votes they get in front of the room and declare: "I'm right on abortion and I'm a Deacon at my church. The big spending was a minor oversight." And the socons fall right in line.
Any way – I don't give a durn about social issues. As long as you don't want to put government guns behind your position. Currently I'm pro abortion. But only because that position currently needs the fewest government guns. I'd be anti-abortion if there were no government guns involved.
It all comes down to:
Libertarians: "I'm for smaller government."
Socons: "I'm for smaller government except for….."
Why do social conservative politicians have to vote your way?
You are probably going to have a fit when I explain this but politics works like this: Vote my way if you want my support.
You run Alan Keyes for President and I'm going to vote for Obama. Again. That was the year I voted Bush/Obama. As did a LOT of other Republicans. That was not just a defeat for Keyes. It was a debacle. IIRC Keyes got 30% of the vote and Bush got 45%.
You can't give up 15% of the electorate and win elections – even if your position is more widely supported than the position of the 15%. You know this is America. People don't fall into line. They have to be attracted.
Bill,
The votes for homosexual marriage and the consistent pounding they take in even Blue states.
I'd give you even more than Cato's percentage. As Jerry Pournelle put it, 'Libertarianism is not a destination, its a vector'. You can count me in as one of those who shares a lot of Libertarians goals.
And thats part of the problem for you guys. An ecology of mind only needs one group for each distinction. Which to my mind, explains a lot of the irrational hostility of Libertarians…if they were'n't out busting people's chops, everyone would just assume they were a weird form of Socon and move on. They'd get assimilated.
We are the Borg. Resistance is futile, your ideological distinctiveness will be added to our own.
You think I'm joking or geeking. But really, that's what Conservatism is to a large degree. Really hard to beat a force like that. You come up with a good idea, and we'll take it and use it as our own.
Bill, you guys are somewhere between Full conservatives and Single Issue Guys. I know someone who might be considered a SIG. He's kinda Democratic, but he refuses to vote for them because they support Abortion. Call him a Single Issue Guy.
Moi, I'm for the whole of conservatism.
You, you're for much of conservatism, but have at least several issues where you don't meet the mark as I see it.
The R party should not bend for my friend, nor for you. It should stand for Conservatism, all the way.
Jimmie, Even if I understood why you wanted me to, I'm not going to give up my issues for the money issues. I may agree with you on the money issues, but that agreement doesn't mean I don't believe in my other issues. I don't want to limit libertarians, either. I'm not going to ask a libertarian who believes in drug legalization to keep quiet about that. I'm not even going to suggest he should keep quiet about it. He should work for the causes he believes in, without consulting me. If I have the chance I may want to try to change his mind on some issue or other, but whether I succeed or fail, I want him to devote his political energies to the causes he believes in. If he doesn't agree with me on some issue, he should still go full out, working on that issue according to his beliefs and priorities, not mine. No matter what his priorities are, if he's willing to devote some effort to the government money issues, I'm willing to work with him on those. I don't want him to give up his pet issues. If he were to give up his pet issues, I don't see how that would help me. In the same way I don't see any legitimate benefit to anybody coming from my giving up on my issues. A principled coalition would be working together when we agree, even though we don't always agree. I really don't think it would involve self-censorship on either side. I'm not going to give up on my issues, but if I did I don't think seeing libertarians giving up on certain issues would make me feel better.
This argument comes up in the pro-life movement every once in a while. Somebody comes up with a Plan that he thinks will change everything. The originator of the Plan says that if everybody will drop what they're doing and implement the Plan great gains are going to be made. But people are doing what they are doing because they believe in it. To the extent that the originator tries to recruit people to the Plan, he might be doing something that is useful and positive. To the extent he tells people to stop doing what they're doing so they can implement the Plan, he's being counter-productive, and he's stirring up bad feelings. It seems to me if you tried to recruit us to work on the money issues, you could have some success. That's worked already. To the extent you tell us we should stop doing what we're doing, to be more successful on the money issues, we're going to suspect your motives. Wouldn't I get forceful responses if I went to libertarian blogs and left comments saying they have to stop talking about this "militarization of the police" stuff, explaining that taxes and government spending are much more important, and libertarians should be devoting all their efforts toward the issues where they agree with me?
One point that I've probably successfully made is that I think that your advice is very wrong. Despite that I have to acknowledge that you've been awfully polite to somebody you very strongly believe is very wrong.
Roger, you continue to misunderstand. No one is asking you to give up anything nor am I asking you to be quiet on any issue. I am saying, as I have said from the very beginning of this discussion, that a lot of us are going to have to temporarily reshuffle our priorities to meet an immediate challenge. That is what mature and reasonable adults do all the time, almost every day. That you see this as an adversarial relationship, that you believe you are being asked to co-opt your basic beliefs, is unfortunate and untrue.
The odd thing is that you say I am wrong, when we just won a historic election that proved I am right. Go back and read what I said about the Tea Parties.
No, the borg would be liberalism. After all they're the one's determined to subsume everyone in the hive mind. I'd put the social conservatives as roughly a civilization that is insisting that all the civilizations that want to band together to defeat the borg have to be subsumed by it before that pesky borg question can be addressed. The rest of us are trying to explain to you that the borg are on all of our doorstep and you guys are going to get just as assimilated as the rest of us.
Jimmie,
With this you make my point 'the Tea Parties were overwhelmingly composed of Evangelical Christians'.
And no, I didn't admit Libertarians weren't demanding. I tactfully suggested your description of them not doing so was silly.
Look you go your way, I'll go mine. We don't need you.
Bill,
The Socons do the work, have the numbers, are actually conservative instead of squishes, etc. etc.. But other groups want to steal their due. Now they're saying enough. Especially when the RINOs are actually mostly on the wrong side, and the Libertarians are effectively helping the RINOs.
What I suggest is not only right on more than one level, but it is also practical. There is a Sixty Percent Victory out there. Time to stop doing the same thing, and expecting a different result. The Tea Party showed the way, but its not enough to do the job. We need more horsepower.
The election last November proves decisively otherwise. But there isn't a soul on Earth who will convince you of that.
Asking me to "temporarily reshuffle [my] priorities" is asking me to give up something. "[G]oing to have to" is just the kind of bossy phrase that leaves the impression that you're being bossy.
You're right, I don't understand the appeal of shared sacrifice. Why libertarians reshuffling their priorities should make me feel better about reshuffling my priorities is absolutely beyond me. If libertarians give up working on issues (temporarily or not) I've gained nothing. You're asking social conservatives and libertarians to give up "pet issues." I respond saying social conservatives shouldn't give up working on their issues (even temporarily), because I don't have an investment in libertarian issues. It's not that I don't understand that you're asking libertarians to change priorities, too. It's that I leave it to libertarians to defend libertarian priorities.
Social conservatives may be against some of the libertarian "pet issues," but they don't write articles saying that conservative success requires libertarians to stop working on their issues (even temporarily). I think that this post, especially the comments agreeing with you, proves that many vocal libertarians don't just disagree with social conservatives' issues, they're affronted that social conservatives have their own priorities.
The success of the Tea Party was much more the result of more people doing more things to advance constitutional government, than it was the result of people abandoning (even temporarily) issues they believe in. It wasn't the result of people abandoning (even temporarily) social conservative issues. No social conservative politician said "I'm totally against abortion, but don't worry, I'm not going to do anything about my belief."
Remember where this started: "Each sides' pet social issues can wait a year or so." That's necessary to "make darn sure we don't betray that trust." "Let's keep our eyes on the prize" of better government finances. Social conservatives who continue to work on social conservative issues are betraying no trust. Telling people who have made no promises that they are betraying a trust is just wrong. A belief that you should not cease work on your issues for a year or so is not a offense to anybody. Politicians who ran against abortion and then vote against abortions at military installations are betraying no one. And, by the way, if you expect any permanent or semi-permanent victories in the next year or so on the issue of taxes and spending, I think you're going to be disappointed. That's going to be a long, long fight, not a temporary emergency after which we can go back to our normal lives. If you're going to fight that battle, you should be getting ready for years in the trenches.
This is no part of my argument, but do you actually think that any libertarians are going to reshuffle their priorities for this project? I don't think the chair of the Thomas Paine Coalition to Oppose Drug Prohibition, the No Knock Rule and Government Lighthouses is ever going to say to one of the members "Why doesn't Aynnie come to our meetings any more?" and hear that "She's making darn sure that she's not going to betray any trust, so she's putting aside her pet issues for a year, or so, and keeping her eyes on the prize. She's signed up to sing God Bless America at next week's Tea Party."
Okay, Roger. Your point has been amply made. Same for you Tennwriter. You guys do things your way and I'll do things mine.
The problem with the entire 'libertarian vs. SoCon' thesis is not that the media wants a war along those lines, of course they do. That goes without saying. But it misses the underlying issues that actually dominate American politics.
For the past 40 years years or so, liberalism, social and fiscal, has been almost totally dominant in the USA and most of the West. Even under Ronald Reagan, the effect was merely reduced, the libs still controlled the House of Representatives, the Senate after 1986, most of the State Governments, the academy, the news media, and as time passed more and more of the various professional institutions and organizations.
The reason for that was that they inherited Franklin Roosevelt's coalition from the 'previouos Democrats', for want of a better phrase. After FDR, Democratic dominance was a given, even when the GOP occasionally gained control of Congress or the White House, any attempt to undo much of anything FDR had done simply got them voted out immediately. It's true large chunks of the New Deal went out under Truman and Eisenhower, but the popular bits, Social Security for example, were untouchable (and mostly still are to this day).
Even the Tea Partiers, when you ask them specifically, are hostile to the idea of cuts to Defense, Social Security, Medicare, and debt service really can't be cut for obvious reasons. Which means the underling cognitive dissonance in the electorate is still there.
HC, it seems from the comments here, that more than a few social conservatives want to fight a silly war themselves. It frustrates me, but there's not much I can do about it.
I don't know that you're correct that liberalism is entirely ascendant. The Tea Parties aren't especially hostile to all those cuts. Indeed, significant entitlement reform has been at the forefront of the Tea Party movement for at least a few months. But you're right that we will have to spend more time than we should educating folks about basic economics and how those rules apply to government spending. It's a shame that so many people, like some of my commenters here, would rather lash out at the very notion of a strong alliance then bend their will to doing what must be done to keep us from a debt-fueled disaster.
may be true social conservative issues get people into voting booths year after year whether the economy is good or bad
So true. And when they get out the vote REPUBLICANS vote for Obama:
Obama/Keyes vs Kerry/Bush
I posted a comment and it did not show up (am I rushing things?) any way it might have hit the spam bin.
It hit the moderation pile while I was upgrading the commenting system to IntenseDebate. I fixed it and sent your comment along. Sorry about that.