Reason: Huckabee Knocks "Libertarian faux-cons" in his new Book

[Grimnir Wotansvolk]

moon...are you a christian? if you are...i can pay attention to what you said..if not..eh...I find it amusing that atheists want to throw things like that at christians and think we care.

How brazen of us to dare to hold you to the same standard of morality that you want to enforce on others against their will.

 

[powerofreason]

Saying that legalizing things like pot and prostitution are not a priority (but you'd be okay with it) is a major copout. You can tell the attorney general not to prosecute these "crimes" or you can do nothing because these things "aren't a priority."

Its a priority to the helpless guy rotting in jail because he got caught with marijuana one too many times.

 

[raiha]

Well GW, Ron Paul says it loud and clear. When fascism comes to America it will be in the form of a cross wrapped in a flag. He's a moderate Christian with an open heart open to all humans. (Well, besides the banksters maybe! )

 

[JeNNiF00F00]

I do not FEAr Christianity..i am a christian. I heard huckabee on Hannity on the radio and he sounded very libertarian. I would rather have someone who stands for 50% of the Ron Paul platform than someone like Newt or charlie crist who will not. Tones

Because he started stealing lines from Dr. Paul after the primary debates! Hes not a stupid man.

 

[moostraks]

moon...are you a christian? if you are...i can pay attention to what you said..if not..eh...I find it amusing that atheists want to throw things like that at christians and think we care.

Huckabee said nothing in that video about states/marijuana etc...the reporter PUSHED him until he said no he wouldn't stop the raids. He said nothing about states rights. he spoke about issues he was most concerned about...the reporter obviously had a legalize pot agenda. huckabee said that wasn't a priority. the guy kept pushing him. You folks see what you want to see..and furthermore, you must have a legalize pot agenda yourself to see that as a top priority when our economy is falling down around us and we have komrade obama as president.

I am not trying to convince anyone to support huckabee..and I'm not sure I will, i am just having conversation and I don't mind bantering back and forth about it. If you are a libertarian, you should probably work within YOUR party to find the candidate you can believe in. tones

I am a believer in a Creator, Jesus walked the earth and was infinitely wise Creator incarnate, and that the Bible is a handy book for dealing with life and the problems that arise because of our own mistakes or selfishness. However, considering that many people nowadays are atheists you might want to learn how to approach an argument with respect to a human being and not prejudice yourself based on their spiritual views. Judge not lest you be judge, ya know?

As for the marijuana issue, I think you are blurring posts as I never said anything about legalizing it. That said, I think it is a coward who neglects the medical uses for marijuana and that they are beholden to the drug lobbyists when they choose to uphold the insane drug laws which refuse its use. The people that are seeking it for medical use are terminally ill, and it relieves pain and stimulates their appetite. This isn't a morality issue.

Yet Huck said "Let me just be very blunt. I don't support the idea. I think there are better ways to treat medical illnesses than the use of a drug that has really caused so many more people to have their lives injured than it has to necessarily have their lives helped. There are so many different ways in which, whether it's pain or other ways, I think we can deal with medical issues."

Furthermore sponsers of liberty believe in the value of self-responsibilty and that the government is not our nanny and protector. What an adult does with their body is their own business and if they really were concerned with the negative effects of mood/conscience altering products they would go after alcohol consumption. However, you are free to become as loaded on booze as you wish in the privacy of your own home as long as you don't create a disturbance.

So delving into the issues a bit with Huck,he supported the 2006 Patriot Act, expanding domestic surveillance, opposed habeaus corpus for Gitmo hostages er, detainees. He also favored maintaining our empire status including the increased troops in Iraq, an unlimited timetable for withdraw,and opposed decreasing the number of nuclear weapons we own (how many times do we need to blow the world up?).

As far as taxes go, he talks a good game but they didn't call him tax hike Mike for no reason.

He was on the wrong end of every issue right out of the gate but was a quick understudy. Look back at posts around a year ago. We were constantly lamenting his coat tale riding he was doing on the good doctor's talking point. He had no sincerity and it would not influence us even when they pushed us on how we were following someone who they would see to it did not succeed.

As for telling me what party to reform, who are you? No wonder republicans are seen as control freaks look at how their party conducts itself. I don't bow to the alter of a party if the candidate carries the right message. If I am going to be active with party reform then I will dump my efforts on a coup in the Republican party since they are screaming for a reform. If you really were interested in changing the party you would welcome the help rather than looking down your nose at those of us libertarian leaning republicans. It is after all the basis of this forum to explore a libertarian leaning republican's views.

 

[JeNNiF00F00]

Look...this is ALSO the problem I have with libertarians. While I agree that medical marijuana should be legalized, i do NOT consider it a top priority. What the HELL is wrong with the rest of what huckabee said??? he is concerned about the Constitution and second amendment, he is concerned about the FAIR TAX and changing the tax code...he is concerned with getting more affordable health care without socialism, DAMN...you are going to HARP on POT? this is what irritates me with libertarians...pot is not a top priority. Some states are doing OK with it. California for instance. I do NOT consider SOCIAL issues like porn, prostitution, drugs and gambling to be TOP PRIORITIES. I find it RIDICULOUS. I said it before, if we can get a candidate that is going to work on 50% of the Ron Paul platform...YAY! tones

Huckabee is a fascist hack and is only concerned about himself.

For some people, "Pot" is their medicine and IS top priority. If you ever get sick enough, and have to worry about dealing with gun toting criminals who carry what you need having to drive into bad parts of town and risk your life so that you can feel some sense of relief from pain then it would be one of your priorities to legalize this plant.

The people in California are STILL being busted for Cannabis by the FEDS. Altho it is a state law, the FEDS still trump the states. People need their medicines and have to worry about the feds busting in their homes even if they are following state law. Its an issue that doesn't need to be swept under the rug any longer.

By legalizing cannabis, the issues you mention would be next to null. The govt could then tax it which would then replace many of the other taxes out there. The cops would also be able to worry about REAL criminals causing violence against citizens! Hell, by legalizing cannabis, I truely believe that we could actually FIX our countries debt if things were done correctly! So yeah, legalization of Cannabis, IS a major factor.

Thinking just bout yourself Id say is pretty selfish and is very unchristian. It's about thinking about the entire whole not just a couple of issues pertaining to yourself.

http://digg.com/politics/Feds_Too_Busy_Busting_Medical_Marijuana_Shops_To_Catch_Anthrax_Perps

http://digg.com/health/Raiding_California_Medical_Marijuana_Provider_Faces_100_Yrs

http://norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=5033

http://www.lacitybeat.com/cms/story/detail/raid_diaries/5913/

 

[georgiaboy]

I am a believer in a Creator, Jesus walked the earth and was infinitely wise Creator incarnate, and that the Bible is a handy book for dealing with life and the problems that arise because of our own mistakes or selfishness. However, considering that many people nowadays are atheists you might want to learn how to approach an argument with respect to a human being and not prejudice yourself based on their spiritual views. Judge not lest you be judge, ya know?

As for the marijuana issue, I think you are blurring posts as I never said anything about legalizing it. That said, I think it is a coward who neglects the medical uses for marijuana and that they are beholden to the drug lobbyists when they choose to uphold the insane drug laws which refuse its use. The people that are seeking it for medical use are terminally ill, and it relieves pain and stimulates their appetite. This isn't a morality issue.

Yet Huck said "Let me just be very blunt. I don't support the idea. I think there are better ways to treat medical illnesses than the use of a drug that has really caused so many more people to have their lives injured than it has to necessarily have their lives helped. There are so many different ways in which, whether it's pain or other ways, I think we can deal with medical issues."

Furthermore sponsers of liberty believe in the value of self-responsibilty and that the government is not our nanny and protector. What an adult does with their body is their own business and if they really were concerned with the negative effects of mood/conscience altering products they would go after alcohol consumption. However, you are free to become as loaded on booze as you wish in the privacy of your own home as long as you don't create a disturbance.

So delving into the issues a bit with Huck,he supported the 2006 Patriot Act, expanding domestic surveillance, opposed habeaus corpus for Gitmo hostages er, detainees. He also favored maintaining our empire status including the increased troops in Iraq, an unlimited timetable for withdraw,and opposed decreasing the number of nuclear weapons we own (how many times do we need to blow the world up?).

As far as taxes go, he talks a good game but they didn't call him tax hike Mike for no reason.

He was on the wrong end of every issue right out of the gate but was a quick understudy. Look back at posts around a year ago. We were constantly lamenting his coat tale riding he was doing on the good doctor's talking point. He had no sincerity and it would not influence us even when they pushed us on how we were following someone who they would see to it did not succeed.

As for telling me what party to reform, who are you? No wonder republicans are seen as control freaks look at how their party conducts itself. I don't bow to the alter of a party if the candidate carries the right message. If I am going to be active with party reform then I will dump my efforts on a coup in the Republican party since they are screaming for a reform. If you really were interested in changing the party you would welcome the help rather than looking down your nose at those of us libertarian leaning republicans. It is after all the basis of this forum to explore a libertarian leaning republican's views.

qft.

 

[tonesforjonesbones]

You are never going to get anywhere with your attitudes. I think you should all stay in the LP. These attitudes are going to get you thrown out of the GOP again. I consider it is better to accept 50% than be thrown out with nothing. This is not going to happen over night. It will be a long slow process...to change hearts and minds. There will have to be compromise in order to make any progress. The Founders had to compromise and so will we if we are going to get some of the things we want. It might be best to prioritize and work for the top 5 or so issues. Tones

 

[tonesforjonesbones]

I would approach domestic policy...foreign policy seems to be controlled by the elites, but we could work on domestic issues, like limited government, fiscal responsibility, tax issues..even if it is the fair tax as long as they amend the 16th amendment, a Return to the constitutuion, and making sure we have non activist justices on the bench...things like that which are common ground with the republican party platform. tones

 

[JohnJay]

. . .These attitudes are going to get you thrown out of the GOP again . . .

The party of exclusion - the GOP - does need to throw out as many people as it can, as quickly as it can.

 

[nbhadja]

Guys if you have not realized it yet tonesforjonesbones is a neo-con trying to convert RP supporters to neocon views.

On that other thread about voting up Ron Paul on some online poll he immediately comes in and says "Ron Paul will not even run in 2012." Then he said "you guys should try to keep your views out of the GOP." That statement proves he is a neocon shill.


...Um...WHY THE FUCK do you care? It is a online poll with a large number of hits and even if RP does not run he should still be voted in that poll.

Since tonesforjonesbones supports McCain, Palin, Sanford he probably voted Palin in that poll.

 

[Andrew-Austin]

You are never going to get anywhere with your attitudes. I think you should all stay in the LP. These attitudes are going to get you thrown out of the GOP again. I consider it is better to accept 50% than be thrown out with nothing. This is not going to happen over night. It will be a long slow process...to change hearts and minds. There will have to be compromise in order to make any progress. The Founders had to compromise and so will we if we are going to get some of the things we want. It might be best to prioritize and work for the top 5 or so issues. Tones

And I think you should continue selling out Ron Paul's philosophy just to be accepted by the neocons. Oh wait..

I would approach domestic policy...foreign policy seems to be controlled by the elites, but we could work on domestic issues, like limited government, fiscal responsibility, tax issues..even if it is the fair tax as long as they amend the 16th amendment, a Return to the constitutuion, and making sure we have non activist justices on the bench...things like that which are common ground with the republican party platform. tones

Domestic policy is also controlled by the "elites".

You can't have constitutional, fiscally responsible government while at the same time throwing billions of dollars in aid to other countries and fighting an utterly insane global war on terror. Foreign policy is the GOP's worst issue, war is always their first priority which leads them to sacrifice civil liberties and run away from fiscal responsibility.

 

[tonesforjonesbones]

I thought this article was timely and a good addition to this thread. tones

Can Libertarians and Social Conservatives find Common Ground?
by Hunter Baker
Ronald Reagan As the standard bearer for American conservatism for two decades, Ronald Reagan effortlessly embodied fusionism by uniting Mont Pelerin style libertarians, populist Christians, Burkean conservatives, and national security voters into a devastatingly successful electoral bloc. Today, it is nearly impossible to imagine a candidate winning both New York and Texas, but Reagan and that group of fellow travelers did.

In the meantime, the coalition has begun to show strain as the forces pushing outward exceed those holding it together. The Soviet Union, once so great a threat that Whittaker Chambers felt certain he was switching to the losing side when he began to inform on fellow Communist agents working within the United States, evaporated in what seemed like a period of days in the early 1990s. Suddenly, the ultimate threat of despotic big government eased and companions in arms had the occasion to re-assess their relationship. The review of competing priorities has left former friends moving apart. Perhaps nowhere is the tension greater and more consequential than between the socially conservative elements of the group and devotees of libertarianism.

The two groups have little natural tendency to trust each other when not confronted by a common enemy as in the case of the Cold War. Libertarians simply want to minimize the role of government as much as possible. For them, questions of maintaining strong traditional family units and preserving sexual and/or bioethical mores fall into an unessential realm as far as government is concerned. The government, echoing the thought of John Locke, should primarily occupy itself with providing for physical safety of the person while allowing for the maximum freedom possible for pursuit of self-interest.

Social conservatives similarly view the government as having a primary mission of providing safety, but they also look to the law as a source of moral authority. Man-made law, for them, should seek to be in accord to some degree with divine and natural law. Rifts open wide when social conservatives pursue a public policy agenda designed to prevent divorce, encourage marriage over cohabitation, prevent new understandings of marriage from emerging (e.g. gay marriage or polygamous marriage), prevent avant garde developments in biological experimentation, and a variety of other issues outside (from the libertarian perspective) the true mandate of government that cannot seek to define the good, the right, and the beautiful for a community of individuals. To the degree social conservatives seek to achieve some kind of collective excellence along the lines suggested by Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas, libertarians see a mirror image of the threat posed by big-government leftists.

Equally intense suspicions exist on the socially conservative side of the relationship. Libertarians can appear to be obsessed with money and a desire to be left alone, unencumbered by any obligation to their fellows other than not to interfere with their lives. The tension inherent in the relationship erupted during the American presidential primaries when the libertarian-oriented Club for Growth clashed with former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee, a Christian conservative. Club for Growth seemed to single out Huckabee for the most uncharitable view possible of his free-market bonafides. Rather than attempt conciliation, Huckabee apparently relished the attack and labeled the small government group "The Club for Greed."


U.S. Capitol building, Washington DC The question, borrowed from the longest running feature in women's magazine history, is "Can this marriage be saved?" Do libertarians and social conservatives with religious concerns have a relationship worth preserving? As a Christian with strong sympathies toward social conservatism, I can help address part of that question. My answer is that libertarians and social conservatives have a strong interest in seeing each other persist in the American polity. Perhaps a libertarian analyst can address the issue from the other side.

So, why should libertarians see value in what social and religious conservatives hope to achieve? The answer lies in the concept at the core of the American experiment. America is not about unfettered freedom. America is about a particular type of liberty that has been the glory of the Western heritage, ordered liberty. Freedom without a strong moral basis ends up being an empty promise. The American founding generation understood the problem very clearly. The solution that appealed to a great many of them was to encourage religion among the American people. In their view, the Christian religion helped make citizens fit for a republican style of government. Meaningful freedom required the exercise of virtue on behalf of citizens. The connection between religion and virtue was easy to make. After all, even Voltaire hid his skeptical conversations about religion from his servants for fear they'd steal the silver if released from fear of divine punishment.


Milton Friedman Put very simply, the travail of freedom is this: Immoral actors take advantage of moral ones. If everyone has to rationally suspect others of immoral behavior in order to protect themselves, then the value of exchange is severely undercut by the cost of self-protective action. Eventually, in an attempt to ease the expense of self-protection, participants petition the government for regulation. Regulation undercuts the entire libertarian idea. The key, of course, to breaking the cycle of advantage-taking and regulation-building is to change the nature of the actors. The more virtuous the actors, the less opportunistic behavior, and the more confidence all actors can have at the outset of exchange. What is needed is trust. With trust, the costs of transaction rapidly decline and the need for government regulation and enforcement moves downward, as well. Social conservatives press for public policies that tend to increase social capital by improving citizens.

Just as an example, consider the social conservative push toward policies that encourage marriage rather than cohabitation and discourage divorce. Social statistics from the last twenty years establish in a fairly uncontroversial fashion that children from intact, two-parent families will, on average, perform better in school, be less likely to get pregnant out of wedlock, be less likely to do drugs or abuse alcohol, and are substantially less likely to spend time in prison. If there are policies that can actually increase the likelihood that children can be raised in intact families, then it makes sense to pursue those policies (within reason) because they will become, on average, more virtuous citizens less likely to impose costs on others through moral failures. If the logic here is sound, then libertarians have an incentive to consider at least some policy activities of social conservatives as potentially justifiable and beneficial even within a libertarian framework.

The crux of the matter is social capital. Social capital is the name we give the value generated by the virtuous actions and attitudes of the people. A society with a libertarian style government is a near impossibility without substantial social capital. No trust, no virtue, no small government. This formula is virtually axiomatic.


Signing of the Constitution of the United States Another point of connection between libertarians and social/religious conservatives occurs because of theology. Social conservatives tend to believe human beings are tainted by a sinful nature. If we are all sinful, then how sound a policy is it to place a great deal of power in a government of one person or of many persons? Though the Christian revelation, for example, does not aim its canon specifically against monarchy or any other kind of high-powered government, the practical outworking of a doctrine of original sin is that power should be restricted, checked, and divided. The American constitutional regime set up by the founding generation should surprise no one. It was a likely outcome not only of a group of thinkers influenced by Locke, but also by the Calvinism that had long been prominent in the new world as the faith of the Puritans.

This suspicion of power continues to unite social conservatives and libertarians. While libertarians might protest that social conservatives seek to expand the government's interest in "private" matters of sex, reproduction, and marriage, the reality is that they have primarily fought a rearguard action in which they attempt to preserve laws under attack by an activist judiciary. Social conservatives have not fought for some new regime of moral authority at the expense of freedom. Rather, they have tried to save the old one because of the educational effect of law.

When it comes to new ideas about expanding government, social conservatives are largely still quite reserved exactly because of their desire not to feed a bureaucratic beast likely to develop an agenda independent of its intended purpose. As a group, they would far prefer to see mediating institutions take on the great social reforms of the day, just as they would prefer to see the church return to a much more prominent role in addressing both the needs and root causes of poverty. Another issue that offers great promise for the relationship between social/religious conservatives and libertarians is school choice. Prior to September 11, the movement for school choice was gaining steam very rapidly. It was the rare initiative that seemed to fit libertarian purposes easily while simultaneously addressing the question of social justice. After September 11, the war on terror sucked all the air out of the room for creative social policy advances, and school choice moved well down the national agenda.

School choice hasn't gone away, though. It is a matter that promises to re-emerge powerfully when domestic policy again moves to center focus. A great many evangelicals probably came to know of Milton Friedman because of his work in school choice rather than because of his justly famous broader work in economic theory. For libertarians the interest comes from harnessing the power of competition to improve the entire educational system and to take a step toward privatizing a massive public undertaking. Social conservatives perceive those virtues, but are more interested in the protection school choice offers for their right to control the education of their children and to insulate them from what they view as the indoctrination of left-wing ideology.

So, can the marriage be saved? Are libertarians and social conservatives destined to grow further apart or can they unite around these points of connection involving social capital, suspicion of government power, and the privatization of public education? I submit the points of connection, notwithstanding messy public blow-ups like the Huckabee/Club for Growth affair, are much stronger than the forces pulling the two groups apart. This survey demonstrates how much they have in common and how fruitful conversation between the two can be.

Hunter Baker, J.D./Ph.D. is an assistant professor of political science and special assistant to the president at Houston Baptist University.

 

[HOLLYWOOD]

That BeeGee Snaggled-Tooth Sleazeball... was on Washington Journal this morning, pushing/pandering a sermoned-up new book "how I stole everyone else's ideas and how to Preach your way into office"

Mike Huckabee and the crusaders are the evangelical Cess Pool of the GOP. Never have I seen such A "Turkey Sub" politician manipulate the weak minded.

Out of THE MANY faults and SLimey statements from the Huckster, one stands out for me... and the IRONY of Huckleberry even being on C-SPAN's Washington Journal this morning:

On the GOP presidential South Carolina debate, a rebutal to the question... Huckabee stated that to stimulate the economy, we should spend money rebuilding the countries transportation infrastructure.

Just 12 hours before on C-SPAN's Washington Journal... they had an hour of Stimulating the economy with Nationwide highway infrastructure construction.

Huckabee and his ScumBag campaign manager, CNN opinion hack, Ed Rollins, & Campaign FInancial officier, Kenneth Copeland... should go campaign in Jerusalem. Then Huck weilding his Sword and Cross, can bring a New Religious Order to the Sea of Galilee!

Enough of Lazy Eye & his Herdsmen

 

[powerofreason]

that beegee snaggled-tooth sleazeball was on washington journal pushing his new book "how i stole everyone else's ideas and how to preach your way into office"

mike huckabee and the cursaders are the evangelical cess pool of the gop. Never have i seen such "turkey sub" politician manipulate the weak minded.

Out of the many faults and slimey statements from the huckster, one stands out for me... And the irony of huckleberry even being on c-span's washington journal this morning:

On the south carolina debate and a rebutal to the question... Huckabee stated that to stimulate the economy, we should spend money rebuilding the countries transportation infrastructure.

Just 12 hours before on c-span's washington journal... They had an hour of stimulating the economy with nationwide highway infrastructure construction.

Huckabee and his scumbag campaign manager, cnn opinion hack, ed rollins, & campaign financial officier, kenneth copeland... Should go campaign in jerusalem. Then huck weilding his sword and cross, can bring a new religious order to the sea of galilee!

Enough of lazy eye & his herdsmen

lol

 

[tonesforjonesbones]

Lets try this again. tones

Can Libertarians and Social Conservatives find Common Ground?
by Hunter Baker

Ronald Reagan As the standard bearer for American conservatism for two decades, Ronald Reagan effortlessly embodied fusionism by uniting Mont Pelerin style libertarians, populist Christians, Burkean conservatives, and national security voters into a devastatingly successful electoral bloc. Today, it is nearly impossible to imagine a candidate winning both New York and Texas, but Reagan and that group of fellow travelers did.

In the meantime, the coalition has begun to show strain as the forces pushing outward exceed those holding it together. The Soviet Union, once so great a threat that Whittaker Chambers felt certain he was switching to the losing side when he began to inform on fellow Communist agents working within the United States, evaporated in what seemed like a period of days in the early 1990s. Suddenly, the ultimate threat of despotic big government eased and companions in arms had the occasion to re-assess their relationship. The review of competing priorities has left former friends moving apart. Perhaps nowhere is the tension greater and more consequential than between the socially conservative elements of the group and devotees of libertarianism.

The two groups have little natural tendency to trust each other when not confronted by a common enemy as in the case of the Cold War. Libertarians simply want to minimize the role of government as much as possible. For them, questions of maintaining strong traditional family units and preserving sexual and/or bioethical mores fall into an unessential realm as far as government is concerned. The government, echoing the thought of John Locke, should primarily occupy itself with providing for physical safety of the person while allowing for the maximum freedom possible for pursuit of self-interest.

Social conservatives similarly view the government as having a primary mission of providing safety, but they also look to the law as a source of moral authority. Man-made law, for them, should seek to be in accord to some degree with divine and natural law. Rifts open wide when social conservatives pursue a public policy agenda designed to prevent divorce, encourage marriage over cohabitation, prevent new understandings of marriage from emerging (e.g. gay marriage or polygamous marriage), prevent avant garde developments in biological experimentation, and a variety of other issues outside (from the libertarian perspective) the true mandate of government that cannot seek to define the good, the right, and the beautiful for a community of individuals. To the degree social conservatives seek to achieve some kind of collective excellence along the lines suggested by Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas, libertarians see a mirror image of the threat posed by big-government leftists.

Equally intense suspicions exist on the socially conservative side of the relationship. Libertarians can appear to be obsessed with money and a desire to be left alone, unencumbered by any obligation to their fellows other than not to interfere with their lives. The tension inherent in the relationship erupted during the American presidential primaries when the libertarian-oriented Club for Growth clashed with former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee, a Christian conservative. Club for Growth seemed to single out Huckabee for the most uncharitable view possible of his free-market bonafides. Rather than attempt conciliation, Huckabee apparently relished the attack and labeled the small government group "The Club for Greed."


U.S. Capitol building, Washington DC The question, borrowed from the longest running feature in women's magazine history, is "Can this marriage be saved?" Do libertarians and social conservatives with religious concerns have a relationship worth preserving? As a Christian with strong sympathies toward social conservatism, I can help address part of that question. My answer is that libertarians and social conservatives have a strong interest in seeing each other persist in the American polity. Perhaps a libertarian analyst can address the issue from the other side.

So, why should libertarians see value in what social and religious conservatives hope to achieve? The answer lies in the concept at the core of the American experiment. America is not about unfettered freedom. America is about a particular type of liberty that has been the glory of the Western heritage, ordered liberty. Freedom without a strong moral basis ends up being an empty promise. The American founding generation understood the problem very clearly. The solution that appealed to a great many of them was to encourage religion among the American people. In their view, the Christian religion helped make citizens fit for a republican style of government. Meaningful freedom required the exercise of virtue on behalf of citizens. The connection between religion and virtue was easy to make. After all, even Voltaire hid his skeptical conversations about religion from his servants for fear they'd steal the silver if released from fear of divine punishment.


Milton Friedman Put very simply, the travail of freedom is this: Immoral actors take advantage of moral ones. If everyone has to rationally suspect others of immoral behavior in order to protect themselves, then the value of exchange is severely undercut by the cost of self-protective action. Eventually, in an attempt to ease the expense of self-protection, participants petition the government for regulation. Regulation undercuts the entire libertarian idea. The key, of course, to breaking the cycle of advantage-taking and regulation-building is to change the nature of the actors. The more virtuous the actors, the less opportunistic behavior, and the more confidence all actors can have at the outset of exchange. What is needed is trust. With trust, the costs of transaction rapidly decline and the need for government regulation and enforcement moves downward, as well. Social conservatives press for public policies that tend to increase social capital by improving citizens.

Just as an example, consider the social conservative push toward policies that encourage marriage rather than cohabitation and discourage divorce. Social statistics from the last twenty years establish in a fairly uncontroversial fashion that children from intact, two-parent families will, on average, perform better in school, be less likely to get pregnant out of wedlock, be less likely to do drugs or abuse alcohol, and are substantially less likely to spend time in prison. If there are policies that can actually increase the likelihood that children can be raised in intact families, then it makes sense to pursue those policies (within reason) because they will become, on average, more virtuous citizens less likely to impose costs on others through moral failures. If the logic here is sound, then libertarians have an incentive to consider at least some policy activities of social conservatives as potentially justifiable and beneficial even within a libertarian framework.

The crux of the matter is social capital. Social capital is the name we give the value generated by the virtuous actions and attitudes of the people. A society with a libertarian style government is a near impossibility without substantial social capital. No trust, no virtue, no small government. This formula is virtually axiomatic.


Signing of the Constitution of the United States Another point of connection between libertarians and social/religious conservatives occurs because of theology. Social conservatives tend to believe human beings are tainted by a sinful nature. If we are all sinful, then how sound a policy is it to place a great deal of power in a government of one person or of many persons? Though the Christian revelation, for example, does not aim its canon specifically against monarchy or any other kind of high-powered government, the practical outworking of a doctrine of original sin is that power should be restricted, checked, and divided. The American constitutional regime set up by the founding generation should surprise no one. It was a likely outcome not only of a group of thinkers influenced by Locke, but also by the Calvinism that had long been prominent in the new world as the faith of the Puritans.

This suspicion of power continues to unite social conservatives and libertarians. While libertarians might protest that social conservatives seek to expand the government's interest in "private" matters of sex, reproduction, and marriage, the reality is that they have primarily fought a rearguard action in which they attempt to preserve laws under attack by an activist judiciary. Social conservatives have not fought for some new regime of moral authority at the expense of freedom. Rather, they have tried to save the old one because of the educational effect of law.

When it comes to new ideas about expanding government, social conservatives are largely still quite reserved exactly because of their desire not to feed a bureaucratic beast likely to develop an agenda independent of its intended purpose. As a group, they would far prefer to see mediating institutions take on the great social reforms of the day, just as they would prefer to see the church return to a much more prominent role in addressing both the needs and root causes of poverty. Another issue that offers great promise for the relationship between social/religious conservatives and libertarians is school choice. Prior to September 11, the movement for school choice was gaining steam very rapidly. It was the rare initiative that seemed to fit libertarian purposes easily while simultaneously addressing the question of social justice. After September 11, the war on terror sucked all the air out of the room for creative social policy advances, and school choice moved well down the national agenda.

School choice hasn't gone away, though. It is a matter that promises to re-emerge powerfully when domestic policy again moves to center focus. A great many evangelicals probably came to know of Milton Friedman because of his work in school choice rather than because of his justly famous broader work in economic theory. For libertarians the interest comes from harnessing the power of competition to improve the entire educational system and to take a step toward privatizing a massive public undertaking. Social conservatives perceive those virtues, but are more interested in the protection school choice offers for their right to control the education of their children and to insulate them from what they view as the indoctrination of left-wing ideology.

So, can the marriage be saved? Are libertarians and social conservatives destined to grow further apart or can they unite around these points of connection involving social capital, suspicion of government power, and the privatization of public education? I submit the points of connection, notwithstanding messy public blow-ups like the Huckabee/Club for Growth affair, are much stronger than the forces pulling the two groups apart. This survey demonstrates how much they have in common and how fruitful conversation between the two can be.

Hunter Baker, J.D./Ph.D. is an assistant professor of political science and special assistant to the president at Houston Baptist University.

 

[tonesforjonesbones]

aaaaaa

 

[dr. hfn]

email that slimeball neo-con!

 

[tonesforjonesbones]

Yep...you are proving his point to be right. keep on...and continue over the bridge to nowhere. tones

 

[LibertyEagle]

I thought this article was timely and a good addition to this thread. tones

Can Libertarians and Social Conservatives find Common Ground?
by Hunter Baker
Ronald Reagan As the standard bearer for American conservatism for two decades, Ronald Reagan effortlessly embodied fusionism by uniting Mont Pelerin style libertarians, populist Christians, Burkean conservatives, and national security voters into a devastatingly successful electoral bloc. Today, it is nearly impossible to imagine a candidate winning both New York and Texas, but Reagan and that group of fellow travelers did.

In the meantime, the coalition has begun to show strain as the forces pushing outward exceed those holding it together. The Soviet Union, once so great a threat that Whittaker Chambers felt certain he was switching to the losing side when he began to inform on fellow Communist agents working within the United States, evaporated in what seemed like a period of days in the early 1990s. Suddenly, the ultimate threat of despotic big government eased and companions in arms had the occasion to re-assess their relationship. The review of competing priorities has left former friends moving apart. Perhaps nowhere is the tension greater and more consequential than between the socially conservative elements of the group and devotees of libertarianism.

The two groups have little natural tendency to trust each other when not confronted by a common enemy as in the case of the Cold War. Libertarians simply want to minimize the role of government as much as possible. For them, questions of maintaining strong traditional family units and preserving sexual and/or bioethical mores fall into an unessential realm as far as government is concerned. The government, echoing the thought of John Locke, should primarily occupy itself with providing for physical safety of the person while allowing for the maximum freedom possible for pursuit of self-interest.

Social conservatives similarly view the government as having a primary mission of providing safety, but they also look to the law as a source of moral authority. Man-made law, for them, should seek to be in accord to some degree with divine and natural law. Rifts open wide when social conservatives pursue a public policy agenda designed to prevent divorce, encourage marriage over cohabitation, prevent new understandings of marriage from emerging (e.g. gay marriage or polygamous marriage), prevent avant garde developments in biological experimentation, and a variety of other issues outside (from the libertarian perspective) the true mandate of government that cannot seek to define the good, the right, and the beautiful for a community of individuals. To the degree social conservatives seek to achieve some kind of collective excellence along the lines suggested by Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas, libertarians see a mirror image of the threat posed by big-government leftists.

Equally intense suspicions exist on the socially conservative side of the relationship. Libertarians can appear to be obsessed with money and a desire to be left alone, unencumbered by any obligation to their fellows other than not to interfere with their lives. The tension inherent in the relationship erupted during the American presidential primaries when the libertarian-oriented Club for Growth clashed with former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee, a Christian conservative. Club for Growth seemed to single out Huckabee for the most uncharitable view possible of his free-market bonafides. Rather than attempt conciliation, Huckabee apparently relished the attack and labeled the small government group "The Club for Greed."


U.S. Capitol building, Washington DC The question, borrowed from the longest running feature in women's magazine history, is "Can this marriage be saved?" Do libertarians and social conservatives with religious concerns have a relationship worth preserving? As a Christian with strong sympathies toward social conservatism, I can help address part of that question. My answer is that libertarians and social conservatives have a strong interest in seeing each other persist in the American polity. Perhaps a libertarian analyst can address the issue from the other side.

So, why should libertarians see value in what social and religious conservatives hope to achieve? The answer lies in the concept at the core of the American experiment. America is not about unfettered freedom. America is about a particular type of liberty that has been the glory of the Western heritage, ordered liberty. Freedom without a strong moral basis ends up being an empty promise. The American founding generation understood the problem very clearly. The solution that appealed to a great many of them was to encourage religion among the American people. In their view, the Christian religion helped make citizens fit for a republican style of government. Meaningful freedom required the exercise of virtue on behalf of citizens. The connection between religion and virtue was easy to make. After all, even Voltaire hid his skeptical conversations about religion from his servants for fear they'd steal the silver if released from fear of divine punishment.


Milton Friedman Put very simply, the travail of freedom is this: Immoral actors take advantage of moral ones. If everyone has to rationally suspect others of immoral behavior in order to protect themselves, then the value of exchange is severely undercut by the cost of self-protective action. Eventually, in an attempt to ease the expense of self-protection, participants petition the government for regulation. Regulation undercuts the entire libertarian idea. The key, of course, to breaking the cycle of advantage-taking and regulation-building is to change the nature of the actors. The more virtuous the actors, the less opportunistic behavior, and the more confidence all actors can have at the outset of exchange. What is needed is trust. With trust, the costs of transaction rapidly decline and the need for government regulation and enforcement moves downward, as well. Social conservatives press for public policies that tend to increase social capital by improving citizens.

Just as an example, consider the social conservative push toward policies that encourage marriage rather than cohabitation and discourage divorce. Social statistics from the last twenty years establish in a fairly uncontroversial fashion that children from intact, two-parent families will, on average, perform better in school, be less likely to get pregnant out of wedlock, be less likely to do drugs or abuse alcohol, and are substantially less likely to spend time in prison. If there are policies that can actually increase the likelihood that children can be raised in intact families, then it makes sense to pursue those policies (within reason) because they will become, on average, more virtuous citizens less likely to impose costs on others through moral failures. If the logic here is sound, then libertarians have an incentive to consider at least some policy activities of social conservatives as potentially justifiable and beneficial even within a libertarian framework.

The crux of the matter is social capital. Social capital is the name we give the value generated by the virtuous actions and attitudes of the people. A society with a libertarian style government is a near impossibility without substantial social capital. No trust, no virtue, no small government. This formula is virtually axiomatic.


Signing of the Constitution of the United States Another point of connection between libertarians and social/religious conservatives occurs because of theology. Social conservatives tend to believe human beings are tainted by a sinful nature. If we are all sinful, then how sound a policy is it to place a great deal of power in a government of one person or of many persons? Though the Christian revelation, for example, does not aim its canon specifically against monarchy or any other kind of high-powered government, the practical outworking of a doctrine of original sin is that power should be restricted, checked, and divided. The American constitutional regime set up by the founding generation should surprise no one. It was a likely outcome not only of a group of thinkers influenced by Locke, but also by the Calvinism that had long been prominent in the new world as the faith of the Puritans.

This suspicion of power continues to unite social conservatives and libertarians. While libertarians might protest that social conservatives seek to expand the government's interest in "private" matters of sex, reproduction, and marriage, the reality is that they have primarily fought a rearguard action in which they attempt to preserve laws under attack by an activist judiciary. Social conservatives have not fought for some new regime of moral authority at the expense of freedom. Rather, they have tried to save the old one because of the educational effect of law.

When it comes to new ideas about expanding government, social conservatives are largely still quite reserved exactly because of their desire not to feed a bureaucratic beast likely to develop an agenda independent of its intended purpose. As a group, they would far prefer to see mediating institutions take on the great social reforms of the day, just as they would prefer to see the church return to a much more prominent role in addressing both the needs and root causes of poverty. Another issue that offers great promise for the relationship between social/religious conservatives and libertarians is school choice. Prior to September 11, the movement for school choice was gaining steam very rapidly. It was the rare initiative that seemed to fit libertarian purposes easily while simultaneously addressing the question of social justice. After September 11, the war on terror sucked all the air out of the room for creative social policy advances, and school choice moved well down the national agenda.

School choice hasn't gone away, though. It is a matter that promises to re-emerge powerfully when domestic policy again moves to center focus. A great many evangelicals probably came to know of Milton Friedman because of his work in school choice rather than because of his justly famous broader work in economic theory. For libertarians the interest comes from harnessing the power of competition to improve the entire educational system and to take a step toward privatizing a massive public undertaking. Social conservatives perceive those virtues, but are more interested in the protection school choice offers for their right to control the education of their children and to insulate them from what they view as the indoctrination of left-wing ideology.

So, can the marriage be saved? Are libertarians and social conservatives destined to grow further apart or can they unite around these points of connection involving social capital, suspicion of government power, and the privatization of public education? I submit the points of connection, notwithstanding messy public blow-ups like the Huckabee/Club for Growth affair, are much stronger than the forces pulling the two groups apart. This survey demonstrates how much they have in common and how fruitful conversation between the two can be.

Hunter Baker, J.D./Ph.D. is an assistant professor of political science and special assistant to the president at Houston Baptist University.

Social conservatives believe in using big government force to cram their ideas down everyone's throats. Because they believe in doing so, they do not believe in the Constitution and are therefore, NOT conservatives at all. They are no different than their leftist big government brethren on the other side of the aisle; only differing in the exact thing that they want to use big government to force. Huckabee is firmly in that camp.

The Political Spectrum Explained:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ODJfwa9XKZQ