Libertarians shouldn’t fall into Huckabee and Santorum’s trap

[William Tell]

Libertarians shouldn’t fall into Huckabee and Santorum’s trap

[h=1]Libertarians shouldn’t fall into Huckabee and Santorum’s trap[/h]

W. James Antle III, Rare Contributor
Posted on January 6, 2015 9:54 am

• 

AP/Getty

Mike Huckabee is taking the first steps toward a second Republican presidential campaign.
The first time around, the former Arkansas governor rode socially conservative evangelicals to victory in Iowa and a near-win in South Carolina. He lost the nomination, but won a Fox News show. Huckabee, a former Baptist preacher, has been a leading Christian right figure since the early 1990s.

Since Huckabee’s first presidential campaign, he has been increasingly critical of libertarians. He said libertarianism is a greater threat to conservatism than liberalism. He has complained that CPAC, the nation’s largest gathering of conservative activists, is too libertarian (a view not likely to be shared by many libertarians).

Huckabee isn’t alone. Fellow social conservative Rick Santorum is no fan of libertarianism either. Santorum dismisses even libertarian-leaning conservative Republicans, saying “the Republican Party is not the Libertarian Party.”

Thanks for clearing that up.

If Huckabee and Santorum both run, they can be counted on to continue the libertarian-baiting. Libertarians will be tempted to respond in kind. Pushing back against the Huckabee-Santorum statist tag team is necessary, but there is one particularly counterproductive way to do it: by framing this as a contest between liberty Republicans and social conservatives.

Libertarians won’t win such a fight, because there are fewer of them than social conservatives inside the GOP. Social conservatives are also already integrated into the party structure, while the liberty movement is really just getting started.

But more importantly, the fight is unnecessary. The aim is to correct false perceptions about libertarianism. Suggesting liberty Republicans are necessarily opposed to social conservatives instead reinforces those perceptions.

Sure, there are libertarians who are hostile to social conservatives. But by and large, those aren’t the libertarians and libertarian-leaners who are getting involved in Republican politics.

Rand Paul, Ron Paul, Justin Amash, Thomas Massie and Andrew Napolitano are all pro-life. So are most of the activists who support them. The most prominent pro-choice libertarian in politics is Gary Johnson, who left the Republican Party for the Libertarian Party.

There are also social conservatives who share Huckabee and Santorum’s preference for big government. But the most socially conservative members of Congress are almost without fail the most economically conservative. The relative social liberals in the party are also generally the least conservative on economics.

That doesn’t mean that there won’t be disagreements. There will also continue to be plenty of libertarians who aren’t at all conservative and work outside of Republican politics. But the liberty movement is trying to move conservative opinion and win Republican primaries.

Neither of those goals can be achieved by waging an unwinnable war against the biggest voting bloc in the GOP. Convincing social conservatives that they would be better served by more liberty than by more government will turn one of libertarianism’s biggest liabilities into a major asset.

Rand Paul won his Republican primary for the Senate with the support of a coalition that stretched from libertarian supporters of his father to socially conservative admirers of Dr. James Dobson. He convinced pro-life activists that the Republican establishment was lying about him being a closet liberal, while still being the most libertarian politician running for statewide office as a major party candidate that year.

Do either libertarians or social conservatives regret their votes?
Contrary to what some argue, this isn’t a departure from his father’s politics. Social conservatives — indeed, the religious right — played a huge role in Ron Paul’s congressional elections. He has championed pro-lifers and home schoolers. The senior Paul has appeared on Pat Robertson’s “700 Club” — and gotten some Robertson supporters to become more libertarian.

In the presidential race in particular, evangelicals can’t win the Republican nomination just with their own niche candidate. Neither can the liberty movement.

Overcoming the Republican establishment, which has prevailed in every nominating contest since 1988, will require a candidate to win broad support among rank-and-file voters to the right of the party bosses.

Changing the debate inside the Republican Party will require people who can talk to the conservative base, not rail against them. Left-libertarians shouldn’t be the face of the liberty movement inside the GOP. People known for quarantining AIDS patients and using the “bully pulpit” against contraception shouldn’t be the most prominent social conservatives.

Leave the debates associated with Huckabee and Santorum in the past. It’s time to focus on the future.


Read more at http://rare.us/story/libertarians-s...kabee-and-santorums-trap/#5G6Wu7zhWxJRupC7.99

Read more at http://rare.us/story/libertarians-s...kabee-and-santorums-trap/#5G6Wu7zhWxJRupC7.99

 

[satchelmcqueen]

its ok...rand will kick both ums ass!

 

[Ronin Truth]

Authentic principled libertarians don't fall into politician's traps.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

Historically, the position of "conservative alternative" goes to a socon, like Huckabee in 2008 or Santorum in 2012. Rand cannot hope to "out-socon" the socons, so if he wants to take leadership of the conservative faction, he has to take another route: economic policy. In polls, voters consistently say that economic issues are more important to them than anything else and, at the same time, Rand has a natural advantage here, because he is by far the most economically conservative of the 2016 contenders. But so far that point has not been emphasized, which I think is a mistake (or maybe it's in the pipeline and I'm just impatient). Rand can't let the media make this race about social issues (or foreign policy). He needs to reframe the debate and put economic policy at the center. Then, he has to represent himself as more fiscally conservative than the rest without appearing "extreme." It should be a populist program targeting unloved programs like business subsidies.

So, every time Huckabee or similar accuses Rand of not being "conservative enough" on social issues (or foreign policy), hit back by pointing out their decidedly un-conservative economic record (e.g. Huckabee increased spending while Governor and proposed increased welfare spending at the federal level [education for illegal immigrants]).

 

[William Tell]

Historically, the position of "conservative alternative" goes to a socon, like Huckabee in 2008 or Santorum in 2012. Rand cannot hope to "out-socon" the socons, so if he wants to take leadership of the conservative faction, he has to take another route: economic policy. In polls, voters consistently say that economic issues are more important to them than anything else and, at the same time, Rand has a natural advantage here, because he is by far the most economically conservative of the 2016 contenders. But so far that point has not been emphasized, which I think is a mistake (or maybe it's in the pipeline and I'm just impatient). Rand can't let the media make this race about social issues (or foreign policy). He needs to reframe the debate and put economic policy at the center. Then, he has to represent himself as more fiscally conservative than the rest without appearing "extreme." It should be a populist program targeting unloved programs like business subsidies.

So, every time Huckabee or similar accuses Rand of not being "conservative enough" on social issues (or foreign policy), hit back by pointing out their decidedly un-conservative economic record (e.g. Huckabee increased spending while Governor and proposed increased welfare spending at the federal level [education for illegal immigrants]).

You have a point. However, keep in mind that the article is correct in saying that Rand won over social conservatives in his senate race. Also, successful liberty candidates generally manage to be the liberty choice, while winning votes from a lot of people who generally vote for a Huckabee or Santorum in presidential races. Also, Rand has a consistent pro life record, Santorum does not.

If we could accomplish this nationally it would be wonderful from a primary perspective.

Also, Rand has a consistent pro life record, Santorum does not.

 

[William Tell]

I think libertarians should really heed this articles advice. And keep in mind that mocking Rick Santorum in a way that makes him look like a social conservative feeds into what he wants. It energizes his base. Its just like how the more Neo Cons attacked Ron Paul, the more money he raised and the more passionate support he got.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

You have a point. However, keep in mind that the article is correct in saying that Rand won over social conservatives in his senate race. Also, successful liberty candidates generally manage to be the liberty choice, while winning votes from a lot of people who generally vote for a Huckabee or Santorum in presidential races. Also, Rand has a consistent pro life record, Santorum does not.

If we could accomplish this nationally it would be wonderful from a primary perspective.

Also, Rand has a consistent pro life record, Santorum does not.

I don't think Rand is going to win socon votes by trying to be the most socially conservative. But he can win their votes by being sufficiently socially conservative to not alienate them, while offering them another reason to vote for him - like economic policy. Same applies to the hawk vote; Rand can't out-hawk the hawks, but he can be sufficiently hawkish to not alienate them, and then win them over on other issues. Most of the primary voters who are socons and/or hawks are also fiscal conservatives - and most of them think the economy is more important than their social or foreign policy issues.

 

[CaptUSA]

I think libertarians should really heed this articles advice. And keep in mind that mocking Rick Santorum in a way that makes him look like a social conservative feeds into what he wants. It energizes his base. Its just like how the more Neo Cons attacked Ron Paul, the more money he raised and the more passionate support he got.

I agree. Don't pick fights with those that could soon be our allies. Let them enjoy their love of Huck and Frothy. We don't need them to jump ship yet. And we certainly don't want them to jump over to Jeb's side.

I always remind everyone that Rand doesn't need to be their first choice - he just needs to be acceptable to them. If Rand can remain a more acceptable alternative than Jeb, we're in good shape. If every time a Huckabee or Santorum drops out, their support goes somewhere else, we will repeat 2012. This was the biggest lesson from 2012 - just be an acceptable alternative to the establishment's choice.

 

[William Tell]

I don't think Rand is going to win socon votes by trying to be the most socially conservative. But he can win their votes by being sufficiently socially conservative to not alienate them, while offering them another reason to vote for him - like economic policy. Same applies to the hawk vote; Rand can't out-hawk the hawks, but he can be sufficiently hawkish to not alienate them, and then win them over on other issues. Most of the primary voters who are socons and/or hawks are also fiscal conservatives - and most of them think the economy is more important than their social or foreign policy issues.

I mostly agree. Abortion and Marriage are only 2 issues. They matter to people, sure. But you need a bigger platform than just those 2 issues. You can also be seen as the true conservative on any given issue without being the loudest, its possible.

Pro gun candidates generally focus on other issues than just guns, such as the economy, and yes, social issues. Attacking Santorum over marriage issues in a GOP primary is about as silly as attacking someone for being pro gun IMHO. You want to attack him for things that make him unpopular with the base. He won states last time because people viewed him as the conservative alternative to Romney.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

I mostly agree. Abortion and Marriage are only 2 issues. They matter to people, sure. But you need a bigger platform than just those 2 issues. You can also be seen as the true conservative on any given issue without being the loudest, its possible.

Pro gun candidates generally focus on other issues than just guns, such as the economy, and yes, social issues. Attacking Santorum over marriage issues in a GOP primary is about as silly as attacking someone for being pro gun IMHO. You want to attack him for things that make him unpopular with the base. He won states last time because people viewed him as the conservative alternative to Romney.

Attacking social conservatism in a GOP primary is suicidal. So too, however, is a Paulite libertarian trying to out-socon the socons. Even if Rand's actually better in substance on some of the social issues than a Santorum or a Huckabee (as was Ron), he just doesn't have the "street cred" of those guys in the socon community. We can point out some of the hypocrisy of the leading socons (like Santorum's funding of Planned Parenthood), but we shouldn't fight them on their turf; we need to focus primarily on issues where we can be seen as the "most conservative," which IMO is economic policy.

The "conservative alternative" is usually a socon who also pretends to be more fiscally conservative than the establishment candidate. If we can destroy that pretense, so that voters have a choice between a socially conservative alternative and a fiscally conservative alternative, with Rand being the latter, I think all but the hardest-core single-issue socons will go for Rand.

 

[Peace&Freedom]

The libertarian road to success lies in not just emphasizing economic issues, but in removing the impression that we are indifferent to moral issues. As I noted months ago:

We could shave some votes off the Huck train if the pro-liberty side did not appear to be stone-faced aloof, or outright hostile to moral issues. Just because we want to avoid getting sidetracked by wedge issues, doesn't mean there is NO connection between moral decline and the loss of liberty. A culture that allows the legal slaughter of the unborn, for example, shouldn't be surprised that not long after, it sees its government allow torture, rendition, no-due-process detention, and drone assassinations of civilians as well.

While Huckabee doesn't acknowledge these connections, he does bring up the relevance morality has as a partial explanation to our general blight. The voting bloc he culls by doing so can also be mined by Rand and the movement, but we need to lose the wholesale contemptuous attitude towards those voters in order to win over a faction of them.

 

[philipped]

The libertarian road to success lies in not just emphasizing economic issues, but in removing the impression that we are indifferent to moral issues. As I noted months ago:

We could shave some votes off the Huck train if the pro-liberty side did not appear to be stone-faced aloof, or outright hostile to moral issues. Just because we want to avoid getting sidetracked by wedge issues, doesn't mean there is NO connection between moral decline and the loss of liberty. A culture that allows the legal slaughter of the unborn, for example, shouldn't be surprised that not long after, it sees its government allow torture, rendition, no-due-process detention, and drone assassinations of civilians as well.

While Huckabee doesn't acknowledge these connections, he does bring up the relevance morality has as a partial explanation to our general blight. The voting bloc he culls by doing so can also be mined by Rand and the movement, but we need to lose the wholesale contemptuous attitude towards those voters in order to win over a faction of them.

Challenge Accepted

 

[acptulsa]

I don't think Rand is going to win socon votes by trying to be the most socially conservative. But he can win their votes by being sufficiently socially conservative to not alienate them, while offering them another reason to vote for him - like economic policy. Same applies to the hawk vote; Rand can't out-hawk the hawks, but he can be sufficiently hawkish to not alienate them, and then win them over on other issues. Most of the primary voters who are socons and/or hawks are also fiscal conservatives - and most of them think the economy is more important than their social or foreign policy issues.

That's more than a really good point. That's the key to the whole thing. And the way we need to cut that key is electability. Fox tried to take that topic away from us, but I think we need to tackle it ourselves. And this is the time to do it.

It's extremely hard to tackle the electability theme with socons without hurting their feelings, but the one they like the best will never get elected. Fact of life. Neither Huckabee nor Santorum will ever win an un-severely-rigged election. So, they need someone who will remember their help when he gets to the White House. And the state of abortion law in this country alone proves that neocons never remember them when they get there. State choice and no more funding from their taxes may not be the most exciting thing to them, but it's a damned sight better than they've been getting.

The libertarian road to success lies in not just emphasizing economic issues, but in removing the impression that we are indifferent to moral issues.

You're right. I recommend that if you're going to try to convince some socons to vote libertarian, you read some Calvin Coolidge just before you go. It'll give you the right tone of voice for the job.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?452854-And-be-Brief-Above-All-Things-be-Brief

 

[ThePaleoLibertarian]

Good article. Traditionalism is a necessary, but insufficient condition of a libertarian society. Bleeding heart and left-libertarians who don't care about cultural issues, or worse, are actively opposed to traditional culture could very easily be our downfall. Then again, most left-libertarians aren't in favor of Rand Paul because they really like to feel that they're "above it all" and see through the paradigm the rest of us wallow in.

 

[PaleoPaul]

Good article. Traditionalism is a necessary, but insufficient condition of a libertarian society. Bleeding heart and left-libertarians who don't care about cultural issues, or worse, are actively opposed to traditional culture could very easily be our downfall. Then again, most left-libertarians aren't in favor of Rand Paul because they really like to feel that they're "above it all" and see through the paradigm the rest of us wallow in.

Well, it depends on your definition of traditional.

 

[RonPaulGeorge&Ringo]

These people are in the race at the request of Bush-RNC to attack Rand savagely so Jeb doesn't have to.