Today will be “guest blogger” day at GayPatriot as I suffer with my back ailment and trudge through Dulles Airport, O’Hare, and points beyond.
Our first installment comes from Ted at Charging Rhino with his posting “Libertarians? Or just the Silly-Hat Party?”
My complaint with the “Libertarians” is that there is such a ideological and operational-gap between those who consider themselves to “be libertarian”, and those who are members and leaders of the Libertarian Party. In my experience, most libertarians are progressive or conservative Republicans; while the Libertarian Party-ites are left-wing whack-jobs with no real-world credentials and pathetic, questionable backgrounds whom I would not trust over a long weekend with a cat….No less a government.
As with the Holy Roman Empire, which was neither “holy” nor “Roman”; the Libertarian Party uses the word, but not it’s scope of meaning. They might as well be the Silly-Hat Party, it would coincide with their use of aluminum-foil linings.
-Bruce (GayPatriot on painkillers)
I fear I may be in the early stages of BDS.
I think it was the umpteenth million “Shut up and trust the president” post about Miers at another blog, but it inspired me to respond, “For the love of God why?” and then launch into a litany of things the president has done that I disagree with:
– Signing Campaign Finance Reform (i.e. the Perpetual Incumbent Re-Election Act)
– Signing Ted Kennedy’s Education bill (no vouchers, but a hell of a lot of money for teacher’s unions)
– Signing Tom Daschle’s equally porky Ag Bill
– That porktacular monstrosity known as the Highway bill
– The prescription drug giveeaway. Just what we need in a time of massive deficits, a huge entitlement to buy drugs for baby boomers.
– He helped Arlen Specter get re-elected
– Complete and utter neglect of border security
I give him credit for getting the tax cut, the war, and social security reform right. (On that last, by the way, thank you, democrats, for ensuring that I’ll spend the next several decades of my working life throwing money down the social security shithole, thank you so bloody much!). But overall, my personal approval rating of Bush is about 40% on a good day.
I worry that it won’t be long before I start raving like Andrianna Sullington.
Let’s finish that song “Libertarians, Hear Them Roar”…
…in numbers too big to ignore.” Let’s see, in the 2004 national elections, their candidates (Barnarik/Campagna) got 1/3 of 1% of the popular vote. That’s 00.34% With that showing, if they qualified for federal campaign funds, they ought to return it out of conscience for a dismal showing on election day.
I’ve been to lots of GOP state and Nat’l conventions, a few Democrat state and Nat’l conventions, and zippo Libertarian, Reform, Green, or Moonbat conventions, but for my money the GOP conventions have the BEST silly hat moments –it’s an artform for some of the bluehairs and buses conventioneers. An artform.
“In numbers too big to ignore”? Libertarians? I don’t think so. Frankly, they’re great debaters on public policy panels, but they best serve to keep the GOP “true” to its Buckley-Goldwater-Reagan heritage of no tax/small govt roots. They’ve long since eclipsed their best moment back in 1980 when they secured about 1% of the popular vote… with RR on the ballot, no less.
VdaK, you’re being too hard on the poor guy. Somedays, it seems he can’t do anything right in the eyes of the critics or media –and guys like McCain, Brownback, Allen, HClinton and others get free rides from the critics’ scorn. He’s no RR. Hell, he’s not even his father’s man. But he was and is the better choice between Gore or Kerry. Being Pres is all about hard choices and persistent injection into the arena –he earns his $$$ every payday in my view.
I’d give him 65% personal approval rating… budget excesses be damned.
The difference between the “progressive and conservative Republican” libertarians and the “left-wing wack-jobs” (using Ted’s definition) is probably not along the libertarian axis, but another axis of deviation. This axis most likely is based upon working within the system (being a member of a major political party) or refusing to enslaved by it (those in the Libertarian Party).
If I remember correctly, Congressman Ron Paul of TX (R) was a former Libertarian Party presidential candidate. Being a Republican, he gets a place in the power system (good) while having to vote for liberal Republicans for commitee positions because they wear an R on their title (bad).
We see the same in the GLBT community, those who want to work in the system and those who say the system be dammed.
Another difference between the Republican libertarians and the Party libertarians may also be based upon the fact that some in the former may disagree with some of their libertarian solutions to policy issues, or do not like them personaly. No one is probably ‘pure libertarian’ (or pure liberal, conservative, etc).
I actually registered as a Libertarian before the last election (we’d moved to a new state). It wasn’t that I had any great faith in the Libertarian Party, but that I had to honestly say that I *wasn’t* a Republican. There’s no coherent party line to toe with the Libertarians so I don’t feel guilty for being a bad one.
But I’m not a progressive Republican or any kind of Republican, despite voting for Bush (and I’d be surprised if any minor party got votes to speak of last time.) I’m not a fiscally conservative Democrat either. I’m not sure where I land on the libertarian-objectivist axis but I’m certainly, by no means, anarchist.
I was politically active in high school, and interested, and aware… and I never could figure out what the difference between the Republicans and the Democrats was. I asked, too. The answers I got were all unsatisfactory. Dems were a little more of this and Repubs a little more of that, but essentially their approach to government was the same.
Being libertarian or objectivist is to disagree about the nature of government. Not a matter of degree but type. For a whole lot of people the political questions they ask are “is this good, or is this bad”. Repubs and Dems both. A libertarian or objectivist says that good or bad is irrelevant… they ask, “is this the proper role of government.” That’s why a libertarian can say, with a straight face, that drugs are pure evil but they should be legalized.
It’s been a few years since I got any kind of Libertarian literature, but the last I heard the Libertarian party was absolute in it’s refusal to accept any kind of matching funds or tax money, even if they did qualify for it. I respect that and hope they never waver. Someone has to remain firm to their principles, funny hats and all.
Not that I’m offended by references to aluminum foil lined silly hats… it’s just too true. So far I haven’t made contact with the local Libertarian party, and they haven’t contacted me though they must have access to voter registration lists, and I’m not sure if I quite dare to make the effort. Libertarians are some really weird folks.
#5 …
Dems were a little more of this and Repubs a little more of that, but essentially their approach to government was the same
My third grade teacher, during election day, described political parties as “You have one group that likes vanilla ice cream and one group that likes chocolate ice cream. Each group has a candidate … ” I never realized til later how much insight into the actuall differences between the parties she had.
But once again, it is all based upon the axis you view things on.
I’m not sure where I land on the libertarian-objectivist axis but I’m certainly, by no means, anarchist.
Maybe the anarchist and the governmentalist are the extremes, with the libertarian in the middle ? Maybe totalitarian in place of governmentalist ?
Using three dimensional space, or three unique colors (RGB ?), and a single aspect with each axis (or color), one can probably describe each affiliation uniquely (Republican, Democrat, Facist, Marxist, Libertarian, Anarchist, Bureaucrat, etc).
Synova, there’s one major difference between the Republicans and Democrats.
The Democrats Tax and Spend. The Republicans Borrow and Spend.
It’s a good thing that President Richard Nixon opened the door to relations with China. The United States government would have had to lock its doors as early as Dubya’s first term if it weren’t for China’s central bank (and a couple other countries buying our debt).
Please, Michigan Matt, don’t group Barry Goldwater with Ronald Reagan and Buckley (either William or James). Presidents Reagan and George W. Bush have defined small government as one that gets its fat butt up off the backs of coporations but sticks its long skinny neck into the private lives of ordinary citizens (especially their bedrooms).
Barry Goldwater was a true conservative who believed in conserving (saving) the rights granted to the people in the constitution. I think Reagan shared Goldwater’s beliefs but never understood that by empowering the likes of Antonin Scalia, Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, Gary Bauer, James Dobson, Tom Delay, and others on the far-right he had unleashed a growing threat to the basic rights we hold dear.
There are “libertarians” and there are also “Libertarians.” The latter referring to self-described adherents to the Libertarian party. There appears to be a difference. I used to argue with self-described libertarians on various relatively conservative web sites. I learned about the difference when I was conversing with Justin Raimondo on the message board that was maintained by the IndeGayForum a number of years ago (it doesn’t exist any more). That was when I learned (from Raimondo) that the Libertarian party is considered “left” libertarian. He was an adherent to Murray Rothbard, whom he described as a “right” libertarian–and an adherent to what Raimondo referred to as “natural law.” Huh? That’s absurd–natural law is a religious concept.
The death knell for me concerning libertarianism came when we received a fund-raising letter for Jesse Helms. Signed by Ron Paul himself. The former Libertarian Party candidate for president. It seemed incongruous that a supposed libertarian would be soliciting money on behalf of someone like Jesse Helms.
And, what put the icing on the cake, we here in Massachusetts have a Libertarian Party candidate who has done reasonably well–in comparison to the Republicans. Her name is Carla Howell. The problem is that her campaings start out with the “small government is beautiful” mantra and end up with “Annie get your gun” (the latter obviously appealing to the guns-rights advocates). “Small government is beautiful” doesn’t appeal to many people, because people want their welfare. Nixon knew that. Reagan knew that. GHWBush knew that. And GWBush knows that. All the Republicans know that. The problem is that they don’t want to pay for it. They will continue to borrow to finance their spending.
Hey folks, it’s still 1/3 of 1% in the last national election for the Libertarian team. That’s a roar? Or just a silly hat party?
I wonder when we last experienced the Libertarians making a difference in either the electoral outcome, the main issues in focus during or throughout a campaign, or even in momentarily directing voter and/or media focus to THEIR issues of concern?
Hey the crickets yet? That’s the new Libertarian roar.
It’s curious, isn’t it, that even though most Americans describe themselves as “fiscally conservative, socially liberal,” the one party that actually lives that credo is so miniscule? The fiscally liberal socially conservative Republicans are ascendant, and the fiscally liberal and socially liberal Democrats are reduced to recruiting felons, phantom voters, and illegal immigrants to maintain electoral viability.
Lends credence to the idea that most Americans tell pollsters what they think the ‘right’ answers are to poll questions, rather than their real beliefs.
V the K, you might be correct, but I have a different take on it. Most Americans want their government benefits, but they don’t want to pay for them. When was the last time that you heard a middle class American agree to give up a government program that would benefit him or her?
Going back to the post, the Holy Roman Empire wasn’t much of an Empire, either. It was a loose conglomeration of German-speaking states.
raj,
As much as that may be true (and I still think that OPiuM is cute… Other People’s Money is addictive, which seems to be what you’re saying) it doesn’t make it right or good. Someone has to stand up and say so. Someone has to push back a little.
That Libertarians can’t win at the National level and probably never will, isn’t the point. We need our dissenting voices, and if Libertarians tend toward the bizarre fringe, there’s a strong public voice from self proclaimed small-L libertarians and objectivists, and this is a very good thing. The ideas are out there and people do hear them. The Constitution Party gets even less votes than the Libertarians do, at the national level. This doesn’t mean that they, or the Greens or Natural Law, or any of the minor parties, aren’t able to influence public policy.
When was the last time that you heard a middle class American agree to give up a government program that would benefit him or her?
Several hundred thousand home-schoolers beg to differ.
True. Though as homeschooling becomes more common it becomes ideologically less pure. (I said it that way on purpose, but I’m smiling as I type.)
When I was a child, my family qualified for public assistance of various sorts and we passed up most of it. It would have been a blow to my Dad’s pride to take it, but even more of a blow to his pride would have been to accept assistance that we didn’t *need*.
Couple of points.
As far as I can tell, most home-schoolers are not libertarian. They are conservative or fundamentalist Christians. Conservative and fundamentalist Christians are not libertarian. Moreover, much of the home schooling appears to be to avoid contact with evilution. In other words the parents who do home schooling do not view the public schools as benefiting them. I’ll leave it to you to determine whether the home schoolers leaving their children in ignorance is a benefit to their children.
Two, as far as I can tell, the only “libertarian” who has won any office at the national level is Ron Paul. And he won office as a Republican from Texas. I actually voted for him a number of years ago when he was running for president for the Libertarian Party. It was obviously a protest vote, of course. I was rather disenchanted when we subsequent received a fund raising letter signed by him on behalf of Jesse Helms. That was one thing that told me that so-called libertarians were nuts.
Three, the Constitution party is merely the new name of the far right-wing US Taxpayers Party, an anti-tax conservative Christian party from the early 1990s founded by nutcase Howard Phillips. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_Party_(United_States)
Four, regarding “a blow to your dad’s pride” to accept public assistance. It might have been a blow to your health if he did not. What is the trade-off between your well-being and his pride? I hate to tell you, but the fact is that these are not easy questions. I’ve had relatives that have had to resolve the same issues.
NB: the misspelling of “evolution” in the second paragraph is intentional.
“Conservative and fundamentalist Christians are not libertarian.”
I am.
And at least some Christian homeschoolers beside myself are small-L libertarians, and I realize that I know an untypical number of them from years on misc.edcuation.home-school.christian. Quite a few of the tofu and nuts homeschoolers are strongly libertarian as well. Way back in the day it was quite clear to me that philosophically the far right and far left homeschoolers had gone so far around that they met on the other side. Anti-goverment interference and anti-dependance, freedom of ideology and thought, get your hands off my kids.
*Conservative* Christians don’t homeschool. Homeschooling is a radical rather than a conservative activity. It is, as I mentioned earlier, true that as homeschooling is more accepted, the ideology becomes less pure. Yet, almost by definition, homeschooling embodies a number of strongly libertarian beliefs… personal responsibility, individuality, self-reliance, and a healthy ability to tell the “majority” to stuff it.
And raj, my Dad *did* get assistance when we needed it. What he *never* did was get it just because we qualified. I certainly know people who are out to get every cent they can just because they can with no thought to where that money comes from or that someone may actually have a real need for it. I tend to try to say as little as possible to them in an effort not to be rude.
I’ll leave it to you to determine whether the home schoolers leaving their children in ignorance is a benefit to their children.
Given what I’ve seen, leaving them in the public schools has a much better chance of leaving them in ignorance. Indeed, given that well over sixty percent of public school students surveyed report having been assaulted or harassed at school in the past year, I question in several cases why parents would WANT to leave their children in public schools.
The bulk of the homeschoolers I know have college degrees, several advanced degrees; indeed, I know several homeschooling parents who are certified teachers. They are not the ignorant bumpkins that the teachers’ unions and the Democratic Party make them out to be; they are merely concerned parents who want their kids to learn in a safe, accountable environment.
#18
NoDick30mm
If you are a successful conservative and mingle like most peoe do, within social and cultural circles, you probably meet a bulk of successful homeschooled product. Now if you worked at Wal-Mart or skid row, you’d meet another group of homeschooled graduates.
This time, it IS all about you.
Now if you worked at Wal-Mart or skid row, you’d meet another group of homeschooled graduates.
Actually, I think that, even if they were there, they would be outnumbered by YOUR students.
How many of your students go on to college, Chandler? Not many, I would guess…..even affirmative action quotas won’t get you past calling successful blacks “oreos” and black women “bitches” and “‘hos” like you encourage your students to do.
I worry more about people like you using the public school system to perpetuate the slavery of minorities by teaching them that achievement is wrong and independent thought is to be avoided than I do homeschoolers. Homeschoolers generally CARE about the children they educate; you simply see them as a means to perpetuating your racist theories by keeping them in a perpetual underclass.
#20
NoDick20mm,
Isn’t this the place where all good goose stepping right wingers start clucking VOUCHERS, VOUCHERS, VOUCHERS!
Wait, that went the way of TERM LIMITS!
No Child Left Behind is a horrible unfunded federal mandate.
They now call it:
Your Child Can Kiss My Left Behind. 🙂
No child left behind is terrible in concept. So are most testing requirements. So are just about any mastery programs someone comes up with or lists of facts that children should know at a particular age. There is too much to know in the world to narrow it down or to decide what every single person must know, and as soon as we get beyond reading comprehension and math, we’re firmly in the realm of ideology… if only in the choices of what should be included and what should be left out.
chandler, for what it’s worth, homeschoolers are probably more likely that others from the same socio-economic background to forego college for other options, apprenticeships or self-employment, or simply entering the work force. Many of them do go to college and do very well, but the *asumption* that one *must* have a formal education was given up way back when the decision was made that learning can happen somewhere other than a classroom. Since, normally, one parent has given up a career and income, there are also not the same assumptions about what counts as success and what is necessary to obtain it.
Synova — October 16, 2005
No child left behind is terrible in concept. So are most testing requirements.
Sorry, I disagree as to the latter. When I was in high school in the mid 1960s, we regularly were subjected to achievement tests. (The Iowa Standard tests.) But the purpose of the tests was to tell the teachers where we might need more help. And they were used for that purpose. They were not used to villify the public school teachers, most of whom were actually quite good. I. at 17 years old, passed out of most of my freshman year of college through Advanced Placement. I doubt very seriously that many people would have considered those teachers less than competant.
The mantra “No child left behind” is nothing more than a marketing tool.
raj, I’m quite certain we don’t disagree.
Amazingly enough, I don’t disagree either.