If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism. I think conservatism is really a misnomer just as liberalism is a misnomer for the liberals–if we were back in the days of the Revolution, so-called conservatives today would be the Liberals and the liberals would be the Tories. The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is.
I am not a libertarian, and I fight very strongly against libertarian influence within the Republican Party and the conservative movement. I don’t think the libertarians have it right when it comes to what the Constitution is all about.
I am reminded of a quote from William F. Buckley, Jr.: “I am as libertarian as the next man, unless the next man is Murray Rothbard.” (May not be exact, but close enough.)
Dan my friend, I think you do an injustice to Santorum in how you edited both him and Reagan.
Here’s what Reagan said in the paragraph after what you quoted — with a key point bolded:
And then there is the sentence right after your Santorum excerpt, that expresses essentially the same sentiment.
In other words, he is saying more or less the same thing as what Reagan said — so unless you want to argue that Reagan repudiated Reagan Republicanism in the same speech that you claim defined Reagan Republicanism, you cannot legitimately claim that Rich Santorum has repudiated Reagan Republicanism.
And Romney is a Reagan Republican? Get real.
Shorter Dan: “I don’t like Rick Santorum.”
Sebastian, please note I never called Romney a Reagan Republican. He just hasn’t repudiated the heart and soul of conservatism as Rick has.
And V, the above quote explains why.
That’s a stretch.
By your own account, Santorum sets up a straw man or a false dilemma: there is only his Big Government version of conservatism, or, those nasty anarcho-libertarians.
Reagan more carefully sets up a trilemma: We don’t want to be Big Government conservatives, and we don’t want to be nasty anarcho-libertarians either, but in between them lies libertarian-conservatism, the right path. “If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism.” How could Reagan have been more clear?
“libertarian” has no common meaning. It is not a term with a finely tuned definition so much as it is a foggy connotation dependent upon context for its purpose and meaning.
It is never acceptable in logic to use a word of connotation as the subject of the premise.
Beer is good. God is good. A healthy bowel movement is good. No more Osama bin Laden is good. Killing germs is good. Amputating a gangrenous limb is good. And so forth.
Lets get a clear understanding of what fascism is, libertarian is, justice is, woman’s health is, the right to choose is, and so forth before we start using one example of the connotation to tar another example that uses the connotation differently.
Note that “minimal state intervention” is still state intervention; that is, it is not “no state intervention”. In that sense, anarcho-libertarians are not libertarians. They are simply anarchists (who try to appropriate the real-or-imagined prestige of being libertarian).
Real libertarians are, by definition, archists. Government is needed to provide impartial protection of individual rights to life, liberty and property; that is, to remove physical force as an issue in people’s daily lives. As Reagan pointed out.
I think it’s fair to say there is a stronger strain of anarchism in libertarian circles now than there was in the 1980’s. And what Santorum may be responding to is less domestic level policies than the Neo-Isolationism of the RuPaulians. One of the things Santorum has taken a lot of grief for is sounding the alarm on Islamic Fascism and Iranian Nuclear Ambitions. It’s kind of become distasteful to point out that the USA has global responsibilities and faces global threats in some sectors of the Republican coalition.
If this is what he meant, he could have articulated it better. He was quite clear on the threat of Government to freedom domestically in his speech at CPAC.
Some might almost call that a classically libertarian position.
Rhymes, in the sentence that you add from the Santorum quote, you show that Santorum doesn’t get libertarianism. Reagan made clear that he favored a role for the state — as does most sensible libertarians. They favor a state role, albeit a severely constrained role.
Thanks, ILC, for doing the followup for me.
V, fair point.
That leaves me, however, with a picture of Santorum as either confused (unclear about the nature of his own convictions), or pandering (Tea Party, libertarian conservatism being a bit more fashionable in 2012).
And no, NOT as if to say Romney and Gingrich aren’t confused and/or pandering also… 😉
Santorum is a serious Catholic and therefore influenced by the last 100 years or so of what is called Catholic Social Doctrine, which has tried to chart a theoretical course between laissez faire capitalism and state socialism. But it does allow government a big role in “the common good”, especially in matters economic. For example, human dignity and natural justice require a living wage, which is prior to freedom of contract. So expecting Santorum to be much of a libertarian is not IMHO very likely.
Unfortunately, their teaching flies in the face of reality. (This is a general remark directed at the Catholic Social line of thought, EssEm; not directed at you.) The so-called “living wage”, which I assume means higher real wages / higher living standards as enabled by higher productivity of labor, comes in part from freedom of contract. In other words, it is freedom of contract that enables progress, with its higher productivity, wages and living standards. A living wage is not prior to freedom of contract; freedom of contract is prior to (i.e., is a foundation of, and is ultimately required for) a living wage.
For B. Daniel and many other conservative gays here, I think “libertarian” is just another way to say they’re socially liberal while still wearing the conservative label. Dan doesn’t like Santorum because he’s not “libertarian”, i.e., socially liberal on gay rights, especially “relationship recognition”. It really all boils down to what the candidates think about “teh gheys”. If they support gay rights and gay marriage they’re “libertarian”; if they don’t they’re Big Government socons who’ve reputed “the heart and soul of conservatism” and need to be stopped. I got it now.
I’m unable to match comment 15 to anything that I (for one) actually think or practice.
“Libertarian-conservative” == in favor of small government or laissez-faire capitalism, period. None of Romney, Santorum or Gingrich are.
This is why I don’t support Santorum. He is a blue collar GOP member. They often favor government action to control certain aspects of the economy. That’s why the Pennsylvanian wants a 0% tax on manufacturing and a much higher tax on other private enterprises. He is smarter than us so he can micromanage our private sector to whom he favors. Not a real conservative. And don’t get me started on his desire for the state to dictate private behaviors.
“‘libertarian’ has no common meaning. It is not a term with a finely tuned definition so much as it is a foggy connotation dependent upon context for its purpose and meaning.”
Actually, Helio, it has a VERY SIMPLE common meaning. So simple it’s easy to gum it up. And it has a very finely-tuned definition. It doesn’t get foggy until the anti-libertarian spin machine goes into action.
We believe that violence should be used only to protect against force or fraud.
There, how hard is that?
Just because a lot of spinmeisters in the media clamp their hands over their ears and shout, “la, la, la…crazy, crazy, crazy” every time a libertarian expresses his or her convictions, that doesn’t make them any crazier.
Looking at the above, I’m sure some wag will think I made a typo. No, I meant “gum” — not “sum.” The simple things are the ones dishonest people hate the most. I refuse to be taken in.
Oh.
Who is “we” and what happens if someone who claims to be a libertarian misses the answer given above? Does he get sent to indoctrination camp or does he have the free will right to believe that it means free will, whatever that may mean?
I will try to remember this official meaning, but I am not sure how far it will fly. Most of the dictionaries, apparently, don’t understand what they are talking about.