A Romney win will be a crippling blow to the liberty movement

[sailingaway]

quasi related picture off twitter:

https://twitter.com/NolanForLiberty/status/259401121162997760/photo/1

 

[DeMintConservative]

That's what all this boils down to, especially down south.

I have heard this with my own ears, too many times to count now:

"I don't care, just so long as we get that nigg*r out of the White House".

And it is not at all what the country wants.

More people of voting age abstain from voting than vote either R or D.

I'm not sure what Boobus wants exactly, but either by choice or sloth, Boobus has been voting "no confidence" for years now.

Ron Paul energized these people to get involved again.

"Dr. Paul cured my apathy".

Yeah, of course. They must be a bunch of racists in the South. There's no other legitimate reason to want your beloved Obama out of the WH. It must be racism. The same people who vote for Nikki Haley, Tim Scot, Alan West or Bobby Jindal.

Disgusting. I've heard that narrative outlined many times - mostly by far-left sites and hawks like Chris Mathews or Maureen Dowd. Never once by a person of character.

 

[Shane Harris]

Yeah, of course. They must be a bunch of racists in the South. There's no other legitimate reason to want your beloved Obama out of the WH. It must be racism. The same people who vote for Nikki Haley, Tim Scot, Alan West or Bobby Jindal.

Disgusting. I've heard that narrative outlined many times - mostly by far-left sites and hawks like Chris Mathews or Maureen Dowd. Never once by a person of character.

It may not be so much racism but its definitely collectivism. He's a democrat. I'm a republican. Romney is a republican, therefore I like him. Speaking of, why are you pushing Romney so hard on these forums?

 

[acptulsa]

It may not be so much racism but its definitely collectivism. He's a democrat. I'm a republican. Romney is a republican, therefore I like him. Speaking of, why are you pushing Romney so hard on these forums?

He's not pushing Romney. He's pushing the fallacy that we're all Obama supporters. Because you can't be a conservative and not support a liberal, if that liberal happens to be the one that screws you over at the Republican CalvinBall Tournament. You know, because Republican always means conservative no matter how much socialized medicine it passes, and the fact that the people have no voice in the party doesn't mean it isn't republican, because, you know, it says Republican right there on the sign...

 

[Shane Harris]

He's not pushing Romney. He's pushing the fallacy that we're all Obama supporters. Because you can't be a conservative and not support a liberal, if that liberal happens to be the one that screws you over at the Republican CalvinBall Tournament. You know, because Republican always means conservative no matter how much socialized medicine it passes, and the fact that the people have no voice in the party doesn't mean it isn't republican, because, you know, it says Republican right there on the sign...

Ah I see now

 

[Shane Harris]

I don't know how anyone who claims to support liberty could vote for either one of those terrorists after that last debate.

 

[acptulsa]

Ah I see now

Well, could you explain it to me? Because somewhere in the process of tying myself in a knot, I got confused.

But when the Republicans lose, maybe they'll do some of the same soul searching that the Democrats are doing. Now that they've won, and discovered what they won...

Note to Demopublicans and Republicrats. We told you so. Both of you.

 

[Athena]

Haven't read the whole thread, but I think a Romney win will almost definitely be GREAT for libertarians. Just like an Obama win will almost definitely be great for the anti-Dem leftists. Both candidates are fascists. Having someone who is "your guy" be a fascist in the executive branch will seriously make you reconsider "your team." Not your VALUES, but your "team" (and most people are either Team GOP or Team Democrats.)

 

[Mini-Me]

Haven't read the whole thread, but I think a Romney win will almost definitely be GREAT for libertarians. Just like an Obama win will almost definitely be great for the anti-Dem leftists. Both candidates are fascists. Having someone who is "your guy" be a fascist in the executive branch will seriously make you reconsider "your team." Not your VALUES, but your "team" (and most people are either Team GOP or Team Democrats.)

Say what? Mainstream Republicans didn't even recognize Bush's fascism...and mainstream Democrats don't even recognize Obama's today. Both sides either look the other way or CHEER when their own "team" is ramping up authoritarianism.

Do you know when Democrats cared about wars and civil liberties? When Bush was in office. Do you know when mainstream Republicans started paying attention to us and listening? After McCain got creamed. Our gains in 2012 compared to 2008 are due hugely to McCain's loss.

Republican identity politics especially are all about collective power and pride in being on the winning team (U-S-A! U-S-A!), and they're fueled by the same chest-beating mania and perverted sense of "strength" that drives hypernationalism. When self-identified "conservatives" feel strong, they are almost completely impervious to outside influence...outside influence like us. The best - and for some people, the only - way to briefly open them up to outside influence is to make sure they get their asses handed to them; the loss, the feeling of being "losers," stuns them and shakes their confidence, and it is at that time that a small portion start to reevaluate. (The good news is the number of people changed by this process can potentially accelerate each repetition due to social proof.)

The OP really said it all...a Romney win is the worst possible outcome of this election, and unfortunately, it's now actually looking like it might happen.

 

[acptulsa]

Both candidates are fascists. Having someone who is "your guy" be a fascist in the executive branch will seriously make you reconsider "your team." Not your VALUES, but your "team" (and most people are either Team GOP or Team Democrats.)

It has been my experience that most Democrats are more likely to do some soul searching when they win, then discover just what they got for all their effort and support. Most Republicans, however, cannot be induced to search their souls unless and until they lose.

 

[RonPaul25]

Didn't read the whole thread but the way I see it is the biggest difference we can make is on the local level, not national. If Romney looses, some people will blame us for not supporting him, resulting in us being shunned at local/state meetings. Whereas if Romney wins and they know we supported him, people would be more likely to listen to our ideas. I am talking about actual people and not the establishement

 

[Athena]

Say what? Mainstream Republicans didn't even recognize Bush's fascism...and mainstream Democrats don't even recognize Obama's today. Both sides either look the other way or CHEER when their own "team" is ramping up authoritarianism.

Do you know when Democrats cared about wars and civil liberties? When Bush was in office. Do you know when mainstream Republicans started paying attention to us and listening? After McCain got creamed.

Republican identity politics especially are all about collective power and pride in being on the winning team (U-S-A! U-S-A!), and they're fueled by the same chest-beating mania and perverted sense of "strength" that drives hypernationalism. When self-identified "conservatives" feel strong, they are usually completely impervious to outside influence...outside influence like us. The best - and for some people, the only - way to briefly open them up to outside influence is to make sure they get their asses handed to them; the loss, the feeling of being "losers," stuns them and shakes their confidence, and it is at that time that a small portion start to reevaluate. (The good news is the number of people changed by this process can potentially accelerate each repetition due to social proof.)

The OP really said it all...a Romney win is the worst possible outcome of this election, and unfortunately, it's now actually looking like it might happen.

I and a LOT of former Dems cheered Obama on before he was elected. Lesson learned.
A LOT of current libertarians cheered Bush on before he was elected. Again, lesson learned.

 

[Mini-Me]

Didn't read the whole thread but the way I see it is the biggest difference we can make is on the local level, not national. If Romney looses, some people will blame us for not supporting him, resulting in us being shunned at local/state meetings. Whereas if Romney wins and they know we supported him, people would be more likely to listen to our ideas. I am talking about actual people and not the establishement

...or, they'll believe that they can still keep winning elections even if they keep peddling the same old politicians without reevaluating a single thing.

 

[CaptLouAlbano]

Didn't read the whole thread but the way I see it is the biggest difference we can make is on the local level, not national. If Romney looses, some people will blame us for not supporting him, resulting in us being shunned at local/state meetings. Whereas if Romney wins and they know we supported him, people would be more likely to listen to our ideas. I am talking about actual people and not the establishement

100% correct.

It amazes me that conservatives and libertarians don't understand incrementalism and pragmatism at all. The progressives surely do, which is why they have been able to implement their agenda over the last 100 or so years. The right on the other hand, splits into little ideological factions and sits on their hands when "their guy" doesn't win.

 

[Athena]

It has been my experience that most Democrats are more likely to do some soul searching when they win, then discover just what they got for all their effort and support. Most Republicans, however, cannot be induced to search their souls unless and until they lose.

Doesn't the rise of RP contradict your evaluation? (Not being snarky...serious question.)

What you're saying might have been true pre-widespread-internet when everything political seemed like dueling urban legends, but now, the smarter 50% of the population can fact-check at their fingertips, which they do, because they care. Also, religious fundamentalism is on the decline in the US (and I suspect that's due to the interwebs, as well.)

 

[Mini-Me]

I and a LOT of former Dems cheered Obama on before he was elected. Lesson learned.
A LOT of current libertarians cheered Bush on before he was elected. Again, lesson learned.

Lesson learned for you, yes, but look around you though at the huge mass of Democrats still supporting Obama, even people who previously marched in anti-war protests during the Bush era. Most of the time, for most of the people, the lesson is not learned at all. Has Romney's nomination just four years after Bush left office not proven this? We've already won over about as many of the rational people as we're going to, and we're coming up against diminishing returns there, because most people have entirely different personality types. Now, we're stuck trying to win over the vast majority of people who form their political opinions emotionally based on social cues. In the case of Republicans, a Romney win will not bring them closer to us; instead, it will embolden them to pursue Bush-era policies with renewed fervor and arrogance and fewer doubts. Combined with all of the other consequences the OP listed (such as our next chance at the Presidency being 2020 at the earliest...a huge problem), a Romney win is the absolute worst case possible result from this election.

 

[AuH20]

Lesson learned for you, yes, but look around you though at the huge mass of Democrats still supporting Obama, even people who previously marched in anti-war protests during the Bush era. Most of the time, for most of the people, the lesson is not learned at all. Has Romney's nomination just four years after Bush left office not proven this? We've already won over about as many of the rational people as we're going to, and we're coming up against diminishing returns there, because most people have entirely different personality types. Now, we're stuck trying to win over the vast majority of people who form their political opinions emotionally based on social cues. In the case of Republicans, a Romney win will not bring them closer to us; instead, it will embolden them to pursue Bush-era policies with greater fervor and fewer doubts. Combined with all of the other consequences the OP listed, a Romney win is the absolute worst case possible result from this election.

I highly doubt this. Romney is not the preferred choice of the voters. His ascension crystallized largely because every other candidate flamed out. No one is going to cheer Mitt Romney on pursuing unpopular policies. There will be a severe backlash. I'd say that a quarter of the GOP electorate are braindead GOP loyalists who care not about policies but about the W, while the rest possess senses and a functioning brain.

 

[Mini-Me]

I highly doubt this. Romney is not the preferred choice of the voters. His ascension crystallized largely because every other candidate flamed out. No one is going to cheer Mitt Romney on pursuing unpopular policies. There will be a severe backlash.

In terms of Republican voters, you're right that Romney is not their preferred choice. Someone like Jeb Bush would be their preferred choice...which doesn't exactly contradict what I'm saying.

Just noticed your edit:

I'd say that a quarter of the GOP electorate are braindead GOP loyalists who care not about policies but about the W, while the rest possess senses and a functioning brain.

Perhaps in terms of fiscal policy and economics, yes...but not civil liberties and foreign policy. Romney acting like Obama isn't "tough enough" on Iran is Republican red meat for a reason, and few have the sense to tie foreign policy to their fiscal views instead of putting it in their blind spot. I mean, they've nominated a guy who wants to triple the size of the military in a country that already spends as much as the rest of the world combined, and yet he's still somehow less insanely hawkish than the guy they nominated the last time and the guys they have their eyes on for next time.

 

[AuH20]

In terms of Republican voters, you're right that Romney is not their preferred choice. Someone like Jeb Bush would be their preferred choice...which doesn't exactly contradict what I'm saying.

No, not Jeb Bush either. He would end up like Perry. On the trash heap. The core republican wants a hybrid conservative like Reagan ( before he was shot). Part libertarian, part realist and with some basic social reservations. In the contemporary environment, Rand Paul is the closest to that and if he isn't demonized can pull together a similar coalition.

 

[acptulsa]

Doesn't the rise of RP contradict your evaluation? (Not being snarky...serious question.)

What you're saying might have been true pre-widespread-internet when everything political seemed like dueling urban legends, but now, the smarter 50% of the population can fact-check at their fingertips, which they do, because they care. Also, religious fundamentalism is on the decline in the US (and I suspect that's due to the interwebs, as well.)

Two things: I, just for example, became a Republican in 2008, specifically for the purpose of voting for Ron Paul. I enjoyed doing it in 1988, and wanted to do it again.

The second thing is this:

I highly doubt this. Romney is not the preferred choice of the voters. His ascension crystallized largely because every other candidate flamed out. No one is going to cheer Mitt Romney on pursuing unpopular policies. There will be a severe backlash. I'd say that a quarter of the GOP electorate are braindead GOP loyalists who care not about policies but about the W, while the rest possess senses and a functioning brain.

I did say most Republicans. A certain percentage, the one with souls, morals and a sense of carrying good traditions into the future (you know, the ones Democrats like to pretend don't exist), voted for a non-nation building conservative named Dubya and got something entirely different. They were fashionable before the Disaffected Obama Voters made it fashionable.

I just wish there were more of both types. This nation might then be on the road to salvation, rather than rack and ruin.

Oh, and 'the rest of the candidates' didn't flame out. Ron Paul was libeled and slandered by an Australian Democrat named Rupert Murdoch. And if he hadn't been, the GOP would be blowing Obama out of the water right now with all those ever-growing number of independent voters.