NOTE: if you're writing a guest post, put TWO spaces between your paragraphs. If you write normally it all comes out as one big block when I cut and paste into Blogger.
During the 1980s Reagan consciously worked hard to bring conservatives and libertarians together. He effortlessly embodied fusionism and brought together the different groups. However, nowadays, the idea of bringing the two groups together as an unstoppable force seems to be so foreign and somewhat impossible if we are to be realistic.
It evident today that both groups do not see eye to eye and as Hunter Baker argues in his blog "Can Libertarians and Social Conservatives find Common Ground?," they don't trust each other. Libertarians are only out to minimize government as much as possible while maximizing personal freedom. The government's only role is to protect the personal safety, while the determinant of morals and good should be determined by individuals. Conservatives on the other hand look to the government for their protection but also as an authority that should uphold morals.
The inherent distrust showed in the 2008 election when libertarian groups went after GOP nominee Mike Huckabee for his lack of support of charities. Again, I want to further Baker's challenge as to whether or not the two parties can really come together. There is a value that must, and should, be found looking into each party. Baker advocates that the foundation of our government, our republic, is taken from Christian ideology because the American people saw Christianity as a religion that helped make citizens fit for our style of government. I question as to whether or not these are strong enough grounds to impose Christianity in our government. I'd be interested to hear different perspectives as Baker provided a different rationale for Christianity than what we typically hear.
Another interesting point that Baker brings forth is the idea behind freedom. As he views things, "immoral actors take advantage of moral ones." Once people have been taken advantage of, then they turn to the government for regulation to prohibit any further occurrences. This view takes root with a lot of conservative ideology. However, I wonder how might a libertarian would respond to such an idea as they believe government should always remain small regardless of the incident or infringement (of course, personal safety is something they believe to be regulated). But again, Baker turns to the crux of the matter, social capital, as the distinct difference between the two parties. Social capital's role undoubtedly is a backbone to both parties beliefs.
As a class looking at both parties, it would be interesting to think of possible ways to that the two parties could actually come together. I agree with Baker that while there are a lot of strong connections between the two parties, yet it still remains unfortunate that incidences, like Huckabee's, do deter the two groups from coming together. After all, the news makes us more aware of the bad in the world than the good. Could this be a root of the problem?
While the media serves a great purpose, it as an institution also serves its own interests. Could it be the root of the problem in politics? I think not. Don’t get me wrong, I believe along with all the good it does to inform, the media also brings some unexpected side effects.
ReplyDeleteI think that the root of the problem has to do with a number of things. The Republicans have been quite successful nationally and locally since the party realignment of the 1960’s, and as the party continues to become successful, party factions begin to develop as a result. This was seen with the Democrats for the 100 years that they dominated in the aftermath of the Civil War. So as we are seeing it, the Republicans see great opportunity for victory in 2012 and they can afford some room to argue over some specific issues. Whereas, if they didn’t see such a great potential for victory they would have to band together more tightly to keep the party united. It almost looks like the republicans don’t have to worry about the Democrats; and they are not because the reelection for President Obama is going to be quite difficult.
Personally as a Christian I hate to press my religious beliefs on other people, and I think that is how the state should treat it citizens. This country was founded on Christian morals, not much to argue against there. However, it is important that the government does not breach individual’s rights. People have a right to practice a religion of their choosing, however often, or never at all. But, freedom of religion does not mean freedom from. If that were true we would have to outlaw the building of churches, mosques, synagogues, temples, etc. just so that people who choose not would not have to drive by and see the church from the highway.
I think that if the two parties were to put aside their few differences on regulation and religion, then they would be unstoppable in elections and legislation. As we talked about in class, the idea of complete government "hands-off" is not realistic. Eventually, Libertarians are going to have to make a compromise on regulation.
ReplyDeleteReligion should be removed from the equations of both Libertarians and Conservatives...and Democrats for that matter. I mean, while yes the population during the founding of our nation and Constitution was primarily Christian, but do we need a Holy Book to tell us that killing other people is wrong? Are we unable to figure out that it's bad to kill and steal on our own? If we can agree that we have the ability to think for ourselves, then we can move past religious arguments in political discourse.
Jared V. Hunter
I am not certain the two can come completely together. The differences between the two are much greater than religion. The conservative wants a government small in numbers and greater in power. Whereas the libertarian wants the government to be less powerful.
ReplyDeleteThe conservative will refer to an issue as being states rights over federal. The libertarian wants all government to back off.
The alignment under Reagan, was in essence a great healing of our nation following the pitfalls of Nixon and Carter. We, as Americans needed a hero. Reagan's style was what appealed to both sides. He was also one who knew how to work together for the greater good.
There are riff's within the GOP. The recent tea party strongholds are doing just as they said they would, be even they have been more effective than Ron Paul. I really respect the idea's of a libertarian, but they seem to lack the ability to compromise. Its that compromise that makes the government work.
The libertarian is somewhat aligned with the conservative, but only to accomplish their goals. They agree with them more on principles. Strangely its the Christian principles that hold them together. The morals and rigid values of a Christian are what founded this country.
We hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights...
Religion can not be ignored. Unless those who do not believe acknowledge and respect those who do, there will never peace.