A recent post from the Action Institute PowerBlog titled "Libertarianism and the Conservative Movement" brought forth a lot of stimulating and challenging points and questions. As we dive into The Libertarian Alternative section of the course, I only saw Jordan Ballor's recent blog post to be fitting. His thoughts originate from a recent event that discusses the fundamentals behind the alliance, or lack there of, between libertarians and conservatives. In terms of being closely related to either Democrats or Republicans, libertarians are generally associated with the Republican party. Since the 1960s conservatives and libertarians have shared an interesting relationship, one that is still ever present in today's election.
It was interesting that Ballor explained libertarians as being ones that understand their "personal choice as the highest good and interprets everything else in light of that single guiding principle". However, conservatives look to their morals, or their religion, as a guiding force in achieving good and freedom. While both are in favor of freedom from the government and look at each governmental decision as impacting their liberty, for the good or worse, they simply have different means of arriving at that point.
With all of this said, Ron Paul who is running for the Republican presidential nomination, has made previous claims to being a libertarian. However, many assertions state that "libertarians cannot be Christians." Ron Paul comes into play again as he is a Christian Libertarian running for president in the conservative party. This is where my questions come into play. Is Ron Paul truly attempting to bring libertarians and conservatives together? Is he simply libertarian-leaning? Or is he a sheep in disguise attempting to receive conservative support despite his libertarian past?
Regardless of which category Ron Paul falls into, Ballor and the AEI Conference bring forth an essential point that we should all look at. That is, libertarians and conservatives need to unite in order to get the democratic party out of the oval office. The two ideologies must focus on their similar beliefs of individual freedom and liberty, rather than focusing how they get to that understanding. At the end of the day, they both share the same goal, especially in this presidential election, and that is to get Obama out of office. Nonetheless, can they come together and actually do it? I personally think it is their only hope. However, with that said, I do think Ron Paul is struggling to receive votes due to his libertarian ideology and backbone.
Ron Paul is a Libertarian. His record in Washington shows he is unwilling or unable to compromise. That's good and bad. I am glad he sticks to his principles and applaud him for that. The main reason he seems to lose conservatives is his stance on foreign policy. While most of us may agree with a hands off approach to foreign nations, it also scares the bejeezus out of us.
ReplyDeleteAs for the two ideology's being more or less aligned, its a natural fit. The bulk of the goals are the same for the two parties, its the reasoning behind the goals that sparks the greatest differences.
My first reaction to this post the the point that libertarians can not be Christians. I think that this is incredibly false. I think that Libertarians believe that a person can be any religion that they want as long as they do not want the Government involved with it.
ReplyDeleteThe other part of this post that is interesting is the question of if Ron Paul is trying to merge the conservatives and the libertarians? This is a troubling question that is very difficult to answer. From my observations by going to CPAC in Washington D.C. this weekend I can say that Ron Paul was rarely mentioned. In fact, he did not speak at the conference whereas the other three candidates did speak. However, there were tons of Ron Paul supporters at the event. Every where you looked there were Ron Paul tee-shirts and flyers.
The conservatives without a doubt want to take libertarians under their wing for the sheer cause of minimizing the Federal Governments power and State and Local Governments. Perhaps the reason why Ron Paul was mentioned so little at CPAC was because he was not in attendance at the conference.
The single thing that separates the Libertarians and the Conservatives is National Security and Defense. We both know that Ron Paul thinks that we should recede all troops from foreign countries like yesterday. The conservatives believe in being the dominate force in the world and spreading democracy. I'm somewhere in the middle of this debate between military action.
I would disagree with Charles on the fact that most of the goals are the same. I think that many libertarians are appalled by some of the positions conservatives today take. Besides foreign policy, as you have already correctly mentioned, there is the matter of personal liberties (same sex marriage, abortion, drug use etc) that are hot buttons of disagreement.
ReplyDeleteIn response to the query on Pauls true motives, I believe that he is more a sheep in conservatives clothing than he is a true conservative. I think some of his views draw conservative support, and he has realized that the only true chance he has at winning (even then, not a large one) comes through the republican party.
I think that your understanding of conservatism as focused on individual freedom and liberty is incorrect. Conservatism only wishes to change the methods of constraint on the individual to social systems of prescription rather than a publicly elected government. At the end of the day though, I believe you are very correct in identifying these things as something that many conservatives in America THINK they stand for. But in actuality, as gays, atheists, the ACLU,and minorities of all types can tell you, Republicans really don't give two shits for personal freedom (gun rights are the dominant exception). Economic freedom is more their style, and without launching into an explanation of economics, it can quickly be said that these benefit the wealthy almost exclusively. I think the association of the Republican party with individual freedom is largely a rhetorical device in the service of these ends.
At the end of the day libertarians have to decide which aspects of liberty are more important, for each of the parties offers them a dash of liberty in different areas.
PS - Paul may appear spineless, I must admit, but expressing the views he does amongst a room filled with almost blind opposition, and peoples preconceptions, the media, and entrenched political powers working against him may just take more backbone than anything the rest of them are spouting.
Daniel DeCarlo
In response to Kelsey, one could argue that the Republican establishment frowns upon Paul so by not having him be a major force at CPAC (which is a critical event for Republicans), they are essentially advertising that he is not important and does matter in the political sphere. That is in direct contradiction to the amount of support he has. Which you did mention .
ReplyDeleteI do not think that Ron Paul is a sheep in wolfs clothing. Why? Because his beliefs have rarely wavered over his Congressional tenure. I would actually like to challenge someone to find a complete contradiction Paul has made during his career.
However, as much as it would be integral for libertarians and conservatives to unite, that simply won't happen. I think most libertarians are ashamed by how the party is using it's moral and religious (just one religion, mind you) beliefs to force others to accept policy that the minority agrees with. In order for that union to happen, conservatives would have to accept that all people have their own right to decide what to do with their own body, their own mind and their own life. And that simply won't happen. They're moving farther away from that every speech they make.
Totally in agreement with Veronica in the last paragraph there, only wanted to clarify that I wasn't so much referring to Paul as a shapeshifter but more to the fact that he is not in essence a republican in the sense that the majority of conservatives are and that he is only accepting that label for political expediency.
ReplyDeleteI think the quandary over which way the libertarian vote will go is an interesting question. I would assume that most would lean republican but the moral issues will certainly drive some into the arms of the dems.
That last reflection leads to the question of which of the two major parties best reflects libertarian ideology. While I'm sure the majority of my classmates would immediately blurt out republican, I am inclined to view things a little differently. I'll list a few instances in which I think each party supports an active government presence.
Dems - SOCIAL PROGRAMS, economic regulation, foreign policy
Reps - MORAL & CULTURAL ISSUES, foreign policy
So if we divide libertarian sympathies into three broad categories of policy - personal freedom, economic freedom, and foreign policy - each party delivers on only one issue, and neither of them embrace a decent foreign policy.
Also, the amount to which Republicans truly support economic freedom is sort of an open question. SOPA? Defense contracts? Home state pork? Agricultural subsidies? None of them speak to the Republicans love of economic freedoms. What does? Well they consistently support lower taxes on the wealthy and deregulation of the financial sector. Who benefits from these? They would have you believe that everyone would. Wealth trickles down. Wealthy people create jobs. And so on.. But barriers to entry for small businesses would still exist. Additionally corporations are the entities in America that provide jobs, not private individuals. For example, you could tax Bill Gates 99% and Microsoft would still be in a position to hire. Oh and what caused the recession? Was it unnatural incentives created by FED activity, as the Austrians would have you believe? Or was it risky financial decisions made possible by de-regulation? God I've gotten off topic, this last paragraph was totally unnecessary.
That last comment was Daniel
ReplyDelete