Rand Paul’s Risks - ...reforming the GOP demands creativity—and maybe contradictions.

[James Madison]

In order to get these Evangelicals closer to accepting some semblance of libertarianism, one needs to inch them closer with care as to not drive them off with one hardened stance until the ball is further down the field with them. All it takes for them to bail is a media narrative coming from demagoguery stemming from an overtly radical comment. Libertarians are smart enough to read between the lines w/o freaking out, not to mention that Rand should get the benefit of the doubt until he proves otherwise which won't happen. Problem is, some of the emotional libertarians look for any chance to cast themselves apart from republicans in general and Rand is that benchmark for deviation if and whenever possible.

The Evangelicals you want to court are no friends of liberty. They are supporters of the Social Gospel, which always leads to statism.

 

[FSP-Rebel]

The Evangelicals you want to court are no friends of liberty. They are supporters of the Social Gospel, which always leads to statism.

Probably true and they'd never consider supporting someone who espouses doctrinaire libertarian position hence the nuances by Rand. I'm fine with that and care more about the bigger picture. He's such a star on fiscal matters that I'm willing to bet that when he preaches 10th amendment on social issues in the general that they'll still support him en masse enough to get elected. If it turns out that I'm wrong, then so be it - we tried anyway. Tho, I suppose Rand and his advisers know what is a winning message and what isn't and I have confidence in their tactics as they've been really spot on thus far. No denying that.

 

[Maximus]

Incorrect, it is infinitely more reasonable to slam a car going 200mph into a wall to slow it down, rather than doing so incrementally.

Rand is crazy!

 

[James Madison]

Probably true and they'd never consider supporting someone who espouses doctrinaire libertarian position hence the nuances by Rand. I'm fine with that and care more about the bigger picture. He's such a star on fiscal matters that I'm willing to bet that when he preaches 10th amendment on social issues in the general that they'll still support him en masse enough to get elected. If it turns out that I'm wrong, then so be it - we tried anyway. Tho, I suppose Rand and his advisers know what is a winning message and what isn't and I have confidence in their tactics as they've been really spot on thus far. No denying that.

So, you admit they will not support a libertarian candidate on social issues, but somehow they can be trusted to leave socially liberal/libertarian states to themselves? Aren't these the same people who want to spread 'democracy' to the whole world at gunpoint? And you trust them to leave you alone? Really?

These people need to go away -- China...the North Pole...Mars -- I don't care. The last thing they deserve is anything but mockery. Please do not empower them.

 

[AFPVet]

incrementalism is the key

Indeed... incrementalism got us here... it must bring us back

 

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

In order to get these Evangelicals closer to accepting some semblance of libertarianism, one needs to inch them closer with care as to not drive them off with one hardened stance until the ball is further down the field with them. All it takes for them to bail is a media narrative coming from demagoguery stemming from an overtly radical comment. Libertarians are smart enough to read between the lines w/o freaking out, not to mention that Rand should get the benefit of the doubt until he proves otherwise which won't happen. Problem is, some of the emotional libertarians look for any chance to cast themselves apart from republicans in general and Rand is that benchmark for deviation if and whenever possible.

Evangelicals are a dying demographic, never mind their abhorrent political philosophy. I really do not see much in common from my perspective and the NAP libertarian perspective with these folks. Beyond guns, we're really divergent. If most liberals weren't deeply partisan then there would be a greater appeal to appeal to them instead of the Old Testament Santorum Evangelical folk who want Global Empire, Centralized Theological State, and all sorts of anti-civil liberties pro-fascist policies. Is it any wonder then why many of us get upset when Rand panders to them instead of to the future and to his base of support - libertarians? There's a reason Ron brings folks together and it ain't called pandering to divergent demographics. Rand needs to hack the root, not the outermost branches.

 

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Indeed... incrementalism got us here... it must bring us back

Care to demonstrate any historical successes of this approach that reversed tyranny and brought liberty to the people? I can't think of one, but on the other hand I can list oh...every single advance of liberty not to incrementalism, but to sudden, rapid and radical change.

 

[AFPVet]

Care to demonstrate any historical successes of this approach that reversed tyranny and brought liberty to the people? I can't think of one, but on the other hand I can list oh...every single advance of liberty not to incrementalism, but to sudden, rapid and radical change.

Yes, but not this time. They (elites) have used incrementalism rather successfully against us. If we go too fast, it will rock back against us. Incrementalism is the key here... it's all games and theory.

 

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Yes, but not this time. They (elites) have used incrementalism rather successfully against us. If we go too fast, it will rock back against us. Incrementalism is the key here... it's all games and theory.

How convenient. Also, I wasn't talking about how tyranny succeeds. To equate the successful methods of tyranny to liberty is foolhardy. It's easy to sell tyranny, hence why incrementalism works so nicely for them, but it's hard to sell liberty, especially piece-meal. This is why incrementalism fails for liberty. Read some of Robert Higgs work, especially Leviathan. All it takes is one crisis and you've lost all your 'incrementalism'. This, if anything is the lesson of history.

 

[JCDenton0451]

So, you admit they will not support a libertarian candidate on social issues, but somehow they can be trusted to leave socially liberal/libertarian states to themselves? Aren't these the same people who want to spread 'democracy' to the whole world at gunpoint? And you trust them to leave you alone? Really?

These people need to go away -- China...the North Pole...Mars -- I don't care. The last thing they deserve is anything but mockery. Please do not empower them.

These people are utterly delusional, that's what troubles me. They still think they're "The Moral Majority". They believe the country is with them. They think they are years away from banning abortion...The reality is that they represent less than 20% of the population, increasingly isolated from the rest of the nation. When someone is so unrealistic about his actual importance in this world, why would they feel the need to compromise?

 

[Korey Kaczynski]

That's how the hijacked government got it's power. We don't have time to slowly teach the people that they have power to change this if they want.

The Fabian socialists used incrementalism to great success. However, conservatism is the NATURAL order, and any sort of leftism is the abberation. So perhaps incrementalism works for them moreso because of their corruptive power towards idiots.

 

[Korey Kaczynski]

The GOP is still very conservative and resistant to change. They will not like a radical. They like hearing that they need to reach out to blacks and all that kind of thing because they look at each othe and nod in agreement and it makes them feel good. But that's as much as they can take.

The GOP needs to actually "get" conservatism instead of parroting nonsense and thinking they can out-liberal liberals.

 

[James Madison]

These people are utterly delusional, that's what troubles me. They still think they're "The Moral Majority". They believe the country is with them. They think they are years away from banning abortion...The reality is that they represent less than 20% of the population, increasingly isolated from the rest of the nation. When someone is so unrealistic about his actual importance in this world, why would they feel the need to compromise?

They've been this way since the 19th Century. Every dubious piece of legislation can be attributed to these morons.

 

[Brett85]

Social conservatives are far better than the neo-conservatives. Many social conservatives are allies of the liberty movement, such as the Constitution Party.

 

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Social conservatives are far better than the neo-conservatives. Many social conservatives are allies of the liberty movement, such as the Constitution Party.

When one ascribes social conservatism we're talking politically, not personally. Many in the CP would not be labeled social conservative esp. someone like Chuck Baldwin who wants to for instance, legalize all drugs and doesn't want to make crimes of vices. If you want your die in the wool social conservative...look no further than Rick Santorum. Now, tell me again, how they're allies of libertarians? They gave us cot damn prohibition TWICE, destroyed localism, and chased away the Mid-West libertarian bastion of the party (Taft/Buffet). Yeah...real great folk they are.

Also, need I remind folk of what Barry Goldwater thought of these people?

 

[James Madison]

Also, need I remind folk of what Barry Goldwater thought of these people?

I'm interested.

 

[brooke499]

If the post is about GOP reform and creativity....there needs to be unity with a common goal and purpose.That focus needs to be protecting defending and upholding the U.S.Constitution and STANDING on behalf of our U.S.Constitution as Senator Rand Paul just did. Demanding that our Constitution BE NOT undermined,usurped,or
ignored,and that the Constitutional laws not be overpowered or violated.For that day....was a historic moment I for one will never forget.Ever! I also loved that moment that everyone in the room both Republican and Democrat filled the room with the sounds of clapping,it was all heroic. We need hero's once more,strong leaders,unafraid to stand in the gap,protecting our liberty,freedom,and to be the voice of the people. The people....need to be heard,listened to,and brought into the equation in order to improve relations.I'd love to see a web board,where our elected representatives actually pose a question regarding something we are facing in our country.ask for a 50 word or less response.Then take the time to read through the responses.There is wisdom to be found in a multitude of councilors.Interaction with the American Citizens might just be a novel idea,then write to one.Tell them what YOU thought.There needs to be a bonding that has been lost.There also needs to be a better format for bi-partisan ,level headed,think tanks,round tables for discussion. A much better format.We are ALL American citizens,and ALL of the people want one thing overall, to be a democracy.to be free.to be happy.to feel safe.to laugh,to sometimes disagree,but working all together for this very freedom.U.S.A.land of the free.

 

[FriedChicken]

These people are utterly delusional, that's what troubles me. They still think they're "The Moral Majority". They believe the country is with them. They think they are years away from banning abortion...The reality is that they represent less than 20% of the population, increasingly isolated from the rest of the nation. When someone is so unrealistic about his actual importance in this world, why would they feel the need to compromise?

I think that's kind of an entertaining post coming from a libertarian. Libertarians have a reputation for the exact same thing, only other issues.

 

[supermario21]

Goldwater didn't care for the theocratic element of the religious right. He wouldn't have had a problem with people like Ron or Chuck Baldwin, social conservatives but not theocrats.

 

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Goldwater didn't care for the theocratic element of the religious right. He wouldn't have had a problem with people like Ron or Chuck Baldwin, social conservatives but not theocrats.

Neither Ron or Chuck are social conservatives. Again, must I reiterate what that term actually means?