It ain't going away. The knee-jerk left and the knee-jerk right will slowly begin to drive all others out of the conversation. As attitudes harden where are the voters, those that only want to choose honest, principled people for office, going to go?

Meh, 1994 all over again. The GOP will get elected with promises of Fiscal Responsibility, then in six months they'll be openly stuffing cash into their pockets just like every other POS politician in Washington.

Repeat ad nauseum until we finally start hanging the bastards.

Depends on your definitions, I s'pose. If you mean "conservatism that isn't, but is what some people think they are," having to do with being more assertive about reacting to the Left's social re-engineering by wanting their own brand, then it is probably getting more muscular as a response to Obama's reindeer games. Pedulum swings and all that.

If you're talking about "classical conservatism" which is synonymous with what "classical liberal" used to mean, then it is inherently impossible for it to become more muscular.

Ignored problems do not go away.

Ever.

There's an opportunity here - - the GOP is obviously up for grabs right now. If the (small-L) libertarian community were politically smart, they'd be trying to move heaven and earth to try to take it over--or at least be at the table with the social conservatives to re-forge the Reagan coalition or something like it.

I think libertarians are in a position to temper the worst excesses of the social conservatives right now in a way that we will never be in the foreseeable future with the Democrats.

It won't be easy, and there's no guarantee it will work, but it may be the best strategy we have.

We need to re-convince the country that Government Is The Problem. I sense we have a small window right now to do that.

The question is how best to go about it.

Conservatism has become more assertive because ∅bama and company are trying to cut it out of the national conversation. "I won."
"evil mongers" Etc.

At this stage, fiscal responsibility and national security loom much larger than any pissant issues that social conservatism will bring to the table.

While I disagree with a fair amount of what social conservatives say, they scare me a lot less than the politically correct and a∅bama do.

As one who has been complaining about govt overspending since I joined jim Buckleys campaign in 1969, I for one, an glad to see a more asssertive conservatism and hope for a return to resitricting federal interference.

Feds that want to do the job of the states for political aggrandizement need to be run out of town. The louder and more boisterous the better.

Begone!

I don't know how many times over the years I have pointed out in countless posts that I'm not a conservative, and there's nothing new in my philosophy. What has changed is that Bush is out and Obama is in. Why the election of a hard leftist would change conservatism, I don't know.

What I do know is that if you don't like something and it gets louder, that does not make you like it more.

The oddest thing about this is that I have a lot of liberal friends too, and they seem to have grown quieter. Is that a coincidence?

Eric, et. al.,

Well, my friends, you are going to have to clear out your minds and decide. I, too, have liberal friends, but they become friends less as they gain power more. It won't do to claim no preference, because the fight for power is well afoot. My own opinion is that conservatism, rightly understood, is an identity politics based on the identity of the individual--hence, I suppose I am a libertarian. But right now the great threat is from the Left. If you don't see this, you aren't paying attention. The right is making some noise, but they have neither the first bit of power nor a leader worthy of the name--the left controls ALL the levers of government. It will not do to worry over desires of the social conservatives, for they are not about to control anything. Your freedom is about to fall to the wiles of the Left, like it or not.

Recall, if you will: "The enemy of my enemy is my friend." It sounds a bit opportunistic, but taking the long view, it's the only maxim that makes sense. Alliances are inevitably transitory, and are always based on it, and fights for victory have always turned on it. The naming of our enemy at this point is not mysterious or difficult, nor do I know when it's been of greater moment. The social conservatives you fret over have precisely NO power.

Another point about the social conservatives, about the religious right. For 20 out of the last 28.5 years, a President won election with their support. What onerous loss of liberty occurred as a consequence of pandering to the social conservatives and the religious right during this time? (Patriot Act was not pandering to social conservatives, IMHO.)

Compare this to the Demos, who are ready to fine and thus jail someone who doesn't carry health insurance. Etc.

I gotta be practical about this- if the Left is gonna take away my freedom to do - well, just about anything, on my own - if I'm gonna be constrained from personal action because the nannystate is in charge of my medical care, if a Mother's playgroup is gonna be charged with running an unlicensed daycare, I will go with whoever is against them. I can sort it out with Conservatism later.

Susan Lee

The founding fathers knew this would happen. The problem is not the parties, the problem is the power concentrated in Washington. If the fed was limited to defending the country and a few other "global" powers (as it actually is in the Constitution), what is the appeal in going to Washington? The lobbiests and corrupt politicians would beat a retreat back to the 50 states where "tar and feathers" still means something. If nothing else, the amount of influence is cut by 50 and I can still vote with my feet.

Eric, I don't get it. The Left is working hard to take away your freedoms, and the Right is working hard to get them back and/or maintain them, and you see that as being morally equivalent?

No wonder we end up with douchenozzles like Obama. Sheesh.

Jack

I don't know what would pass for right-wing alinskyism.

In terms of tactics, maybe the Acorn sting. But if that's my answer, then I've missed exactly what makes of Rules for Radicals frightening.

it seems to me that conservatism is changing

A rewrite that included the words "from" and "to" at the end of that bit would be helpful, as would an example of right-wing alinskyism.

Ignoring issues is probably the best definition of how government works. For Obama the best definition of how government works is to throw large sums of money at the issue and hope it works. It has the added impact of helping his cronies and making bold pronouncements. (This problem needs a trillion dollars for it to be solved.)

Conservatives have figured out that this works for them as well. Why worry when you can throw money at the problem and probably line your pockets and your friends pockets as well. Why worry when you are using other people's money.

The only solution is another charismatic leader that can really make the needed changes (term limits, line item veto and balanced budget). The other solution that is even more unlikely is a third party.

After Carter we got Reagan, maybe after Obama we will get somebody a little bit better. That's 4 long years of watching this turkey make a fool out of himself over and over again.

Not sure what you mean by "muscular." If you're talking about being less willing to lie down in the road and meekly and quietly let "progressives" run over you, maybe it's about time.

When I was younger Democrats were people like Hubert Humphrey and Lyndon Johnson, and when you thought of a Democratic voter you thought of someone with a family, a job, and grease or dirt under their nails, not an academic with a picture of Che on his wall.

The Democratic party has been taken over by people who have exactly the same philosophy about the relationship between the individual and the State as Mao and Stalin did. I think this is more important than whether conservatives are currently "too muscular" or not.

I do not want the United States "changed" in any significant way. What arrogance for a political neophyte, with a very slight resume, who barely worked in his life, to come to Washington and declare that we need to "make a clean break from the past". Up yours, Kenyan boy!

Hussein bin Obama has strong Marxist (socialist, leftist, statist, take your pick of terms) and Islamic tendencies and sympathies. He is an anti-American crybaby, who a slight resume of doing nothing, his entire life, except crying about "social justice" (code for socialism/Marxism, i.e., transfer of wealth).

He inhereted a recession, which many new Presidents do and what has he done so far? Useless and harmful bills have passed (stimulus, budget, cash for cronies, etc.) and he's obsessed with "healthcare reform" when some 90% of American have health insurance and some 85% are satisfied with their insurance situation.

Hussein is transferring wealth in the form of healthcare to his main constituents - the poor, blacks and Latinos (read: illegal aliens).

President ACORN is a joke. He needs to be relieved of duty ASAP.

The only way to help our country today is:

1) Produce energy domestically - oil, coal, natural gas, nuclear power. Build, drill and dig. That will create good paying jobs and stimulate the rest of the economy.

What does our Genius in Chief want to do?

WINDMILLS! He still believes globaloney nonsense! What a hoot!

Absent some examples, I have no idea what you're *really* talking about, Eric.

And if conservatives (not conservatism, but the people who practice it) are finally alarmed enough to grow a pair and stop turning the other cheek, all I can say is "it's about time".

I hear similar versions of this refrain a fair amount, probably more often since last November. Essentially, it goes, "I would vote Republican, or would have voted Republican, but for the social or religious conservatives."

I just do not understand this reasoning. Primarily because social conservatives have little power in the Republican party. Roe v. Wade is still the law of the land, gay marriage is slowly being adopted state-by-state, and even the Christmas Tree in front of the White House will be devoid of religious ornaments this year. With the possible exception of DOMA, I struggle to think of a single legislative victory that could be tied to social conservatives.

If social conservatives had 1/20 the power Mr. Scheie fears, then maybe it would make sense to align with the left in this country. But the reality clearly shows that Obama and the Democrats, with a nationalized auto industry, socialized medicine, socialized art, the Freedom Corps, and proposed bans on internet free speech are clearly the larger threat to individual freedom.

I suppose I could find some religious crank on youtube arguing for compulsory worship, but I simply have to read Instapundit to find some Democrat arguing for compulsory health insurance.

So the question remains, why do Libertarians have such an enlarged fear of social conservatives?

Shorter Eric:

"I want a free ride: I want Conservatives to protect me from the statist, Stalinist Left; but I still want to sneer at them and despise the values that I rely upon to preserve my freedoms. I'm kinda like Code Pink."

About right?

This is all about liberty and when government takes most of your money to spend as it sees fit, it can only end badly. Take away Washington's ability to tax and you will begin to restore liberty. Then we can talk about all the other rights that have been stolen from the citizens.

Nope, you can't ignore it, because something really has changed.

New media has reduced the cycle time through which an idea gets introduced, criticized, modified, and finally adopted. This would seem like a good thing, but I think that it's led to a kind of self-selection, where groups tend to expel anybody who doesn't adhere exactly to their particular orthodoxy. The two biggest groups--and hence the ones that get the most press--are the knee-jerk left and the knee-jerk right.

The only chance I see for curing this is to come up with a third orthodoxy that is more centrist and rational. Of course, my centrism and rationality is likely to be slightly different than yours, which means that we wind up eventually re-arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic in competing configurations.

Rationality is not your friend on the internet. Until that changes somehow, we're in for some bumpy weather.

I too have a problem with Obama. It isn't left or right, it's that he is issuing greenbacks without collateral. The only possible collateral is the work force, but since we have become a nation of slackers, we have no collateral. Examples: the bottom 1040 filers pay just 3% of the income tax. California is broke because their cash generators are leaving the state.

@RadicalModerate: Third parties are not viable. They may be noble, but you're fooling yourself if you think any of them will make any significant difference.

As for the OP, it's easy to ignore conservatism if you're not a politico. It's easy to be a nominal Democrat and never have much more of an opinion of conservatism than the cliched assumptions about religiosity and taxes. Conservatives are trying to muscle their way back onto the national scene, and see that employing tactics that are successful for the left may too be successful for them. It is a rational, reasonable response.

People may not always act in the way that you most prefer (a problem that plagues many a blogger, I fear), but they do what they feel is necessary to regain power. It is the natural course of things.

The fact that you recognize O as a leftwing extremist is the important first step. This mook actually campaigned as a moderate, sometimes even a conservative! If it weren't for press collusion this never would have flown but the pressies cannot bias away reality. On your other twinned objections, I would have to see what you are calling "rightwing Alinskyism" etc and its opposite number. Somehow I think much of that is illusory.

The fact that you recognize O as a leftwing extremist is the important first step. This mook actually campaigned as a moderate, sometimes even a conservative! If it weren't for press collusion this never would have flown but the pressies cannot bias away reality. On your other twinned objections, I would have to see what you are calling "rightwing Alinskyism" etc and its opposite number. Somehow I think much of that is illusory.

Conservatives and libertarians are horrified at what the left did for the 8 years with Bush in the white house and what they are doing in the first year of Obama. The nastiness and dishonesty was just ugly when they didn't have all the levers of power. The nastiness and dishonesty pall in significance to the frightening power grab presently going on.

Focusing on the tone of the dissent seems really curious to me. Your focus ought to be on those who are abusing power, not those who are complaining.

Besides, you don't have to pick a side to root for. Articulate values you support and vote for the candidate who comes closest.

California, Detroit, Chicago, Wash DC....shall I continue?

All run by liberals/progressives for years, decades really. Government, government, government.

Barry Soetoro is a far left-wing lawyer, with contempt for his own country (ha, if this is actually his own country!). His only philosophy is more government.

Think Bush was so bad? Would you like to compare unemployment rate, deficit, debt today with Bush's 8 year average? Forget last fall, Bush, Congress, everyone deserves blame for the meltdown, not just Bush.

What would you do after 9/11? We were attacked by militant Islam. What would you do? Hide and whine about how it's all our fault? We've been "at war" one way or another with radical Islam for DECADES. This is only the latest incarnation.

As said above, the only way for our country to become strong again is PRODUCE ENERGY DOMESTICALLY - ALL FORMS OF ENERGY. Immediately.

Instead Barry-boy and his crew are a bunch of "academics" who have zero real world/business experience. Just theories and usually bad ones at that. Barry and his crew want to micro-manage every aspect of our lives, down to what car we will be "allowed" to purchase and what temperature we can set our thermostats at.

Give me a break. Just go away Barry.......Next.

If you don't like 'left' or 'right' OK by me, be a couch potato; otherwise, get in the game. All the talk about vituperation, incivility and the 'extremes' leaving the good folks in the middle is silly and ignorant of history. Leave that to Peggy Noonan.

The tag line of this blog is

"End the culture war by restoring classical values"

Then the blogger says this --

"I should try harder to ignore it in the hope that it goes away."

I tender the rebuke Sir, that YOU are part of the problem! The Left is not going to roll over for you so you can restore classical values. Its not their game plan. You stand there, that mushy middle, on the sidelines not wishing to get your hands dirty. You are in the fight for what you believe or not. But ignoring something never got you what you want.

Far better is it to dare mighty things, to win glorious triumphs, even though checkered by failure... than to rank with those poor spirits who neither enjoy nor suffer much, because they live in a gray twilight that knows not victory nor defeat. - T. Roosevelt

Matt Lattimer, in his dissection of the years working for Dubya, comes to the conclusion that it was a hack place. Karl Rove in charge of promoting hacks, who were loyal to Bush. And, firing people who were competent. Then? Well, in the second term "he just drifted into incoherence."

No change. Just same old. Same old.

While the way Obama operated, was to cast off White House responsibility onto the heads of Pelosi and Reid. Whom, it seems, can't deliver. (Or we haven't discovered the secret door, where lobbyists are cobbling something together that will get signed, as it gets tacked onto "a bill to save the dolphins of the earth," or some such weird tactic.) But the bamster? Not his fault.

What's gotten exposed, however, is how this progressive agenda came to be placed. And, embraced. Administrations in. And, administrations, out.

Me? I'll gamble that Sarah Palin's approach "going rogue" ... is another one of her two word takes that hits the homer out of the ballpark. Nobody else seems competent.

Can you give some examples of conservatives using dishonesty in their disagreements with Obama? And, "the ends justify the means"?

Unless you are saying that any rhetorical blows that land on Obama are out of bounds, I don't know what you are saying.

A long time ago I remember reading an article by a liberal lady in which she regretted how the civil rights movement was costing Negroes (as they were then) their graceful nature. Are you sure you aren't saying something similarly foolish about conservatives?

Nothing wrong with wanting to take a break from the Culture War. The Right has learned from the Left: results are what count, not civility. And Alinsky is in play.

"Meh, 1994 all over again. The GOP will get elected with promises of Fiscal Responsibility, then in six months they'll be openly stuffing cash into their pockets just like every other POS politician in Washington."

The best answer is to keep government small. That way, the mischief can can do is minimized.

What's that tingling in your pants?

Oh yes.

Nothing.

"The best answer is to keep government small. That way, the mischief can can do is minimized."

Of course, true, I agree. Only how do we do that? I mean, when today so many people work for the government, when the media spends 24/7 promoting government and government "compassion" and government "solutions". That's why the Founding Fathers wanted a small, central government.....because of human nature and it's tendency for corruption and lethargy.

The actual federal government should be reduced ......whole departments (Dept of Education, Dept of Commerce) should be eliminated, whole offices within the government.

Bush was against the Homeland Security becomming a department - the libs forced his hand and he gave in. The media and the Dems complained that we needed a new department of Homeland Security, when the FBI, Border Patrol, Justice Dept, etc could have handled the job just the same.

More government jobs, more people dependent on government and thus likely to vote for Democrats ever more.

I became alienated from the left by their irrational bitterness about GWB and I see the same bitterness from the right for Obama. I still believe that we need one side to correct the other, time after time. Obama will or already has lost his lustre, but he will be President for a while and will do what he as to do to survive and get a few things done.

For those who moan about big government, grow up! In the history of our country, (no matter what the Constitution says,) has it EVER done anything other than to grow bigger?
You might as well try to reduce the world-wide consumption of hydrocarbons. It ain't happening. What I don't get, is how the lefties and the righties can spout the stuff that they do and actually appear to beleeeeve it. Apparently, people need to beleeeeve, and to enote, more than they need to think, but then, I should have known that.

Eric - you seem to be insisting the Right should NOT bring a gun to a gun fight... Sometimes you have to do things which are repugnant, in situations which go (way) beyond polite debate. The Left (Alinsky brand) is fundamentally dishonest and proud of it - they use words as weapons, not as a way to get to agreement - their positions are NOT debatable, but assumed "true", even though they don't believe in (objective) truth. If they are debated as though they were merely old-style (Dem) liberals, where there were actual attempts to work out compromises on goals and methods, the rest of us lose, because they lie their way into power, and proceed to destroy those who disagree with them. You have to fight fire with fire when losing means the total subversion of everything this country has stood for - sometimes not so well - but, unfortunately, that's the price of freedom vs. O's brand of Leftism.

A libertarian is inclined to fuss frequently about the State. He also spends lots of time whining about the socons.

I suspect that the latter is to keep in people's minds that he's not simply a vestige. After all, your typical socon is 80-95% pragmatic libertarian. So other than drugs, prostitution, and a hatred of Lincoln, what separates a libertarian from a socon in practise? But they spend so much time accusing socons. Its very strange....if we take them at their word.

OTOH, a socon is not so inclined to fuss. But there does come a time when a socon gets truly angry, and then clerks of the libertarian party sway in fear and pray 'beware the fury of the Right' as monks did of the Vikings.

Anyways, its a theory.

So according to ShanT we need to accept that this is the way things are and there ain't nothing we can do about it? We have the most corrupt political class of all time and ShanT basically says deal! I don't think so! Viva La Revolution! (and I don't mean Ron Paul)

Conservative individuals have always been more skeptical of government than politicians who claim to be conservative. The only major change I see with conservatism is that individual conservatives are no longer deferential to the Republican Party. In my opinion, the change occurred in the fall of 2005 when then President Bush nominated Harriet Miers and went along with post-Katrina pork. Many conservatives sat out the 2006 midterm elections, cratered the congressional phone system in opposition to immigration "reform" and TARP, and were not that motivated to support McCain in 2008. Porkulus was the event that drove conservatives and other concerned citizens to the street. First protest Feb. 16, 2009 in Seattle: http://www.creativeflashes.com/gallery/7379376_m6MX8#475208649_DUcSS
Republican politicians frequently get booed when they try to co-opt the protests for their own political purposes.
http://www.statesman.com/blogs/content/shared-gen/blogs/austin/politics/entries/2009/07/04/cornyn_booed_at_capitol_tea_pa.html

Sorry, I meant to direct that comment at Dwight.

as long as your goal is indivivdual freedom, it's muscularity is limited by it's end.

the media will find and advertise the worst elements of the TEA parties they can find, don't take their word for it, go to one or 6 for yourself.

I did a post here on "Values Voters"

http://www.classicalvalues.com/archives/2009/09/values_voters_a.html

They are so called "conservatives" and if you listen to them sing (at the link) they are singing "God Damn America" only in a more genteel way than Rev. Wright. I think that part of the conservative "movement" bothers Eric. It bothers me.

What is it about social conservatism that scares the shit out of some people? Most of the time you seem to be rational individuals but touch on “social conservatism” (a code word for the Christian Right) and rationality flies out the window. Does a minute for prayer in school at the start of the day or a mention of Christ by a Christian valedictorian threaten your atheism? Most of the 230 some years of this nation were years in which “blue laws” were common and these are referred to by Libertarians as “the good old days.” No, I don’t think there will be local laws forcing businesses to shut down on Sunday, although that might be a good idea. It has not hurt Chick-fil-A. No one this side of Islamic Jihad wants to establish a theocracy, but mention the Christian Right and we have some Libertarian or hard Leftist getting the vapors about a Pat Robertson dictatorship or a raving band of Presbyterians slaying infidels in the streets. God almighty, bestselling books have been written about this crap and frankly, it’s as obnoxious as the Truthers.

You may not have the morals or the lifestyle beliefs of the vast majority of religious people in this country, but this I know: we are no longer willing to sit in the back of the bus and told to shut up and vote right by people who seem to believe they have moved beyond our “outdated morality.” The more skeletons come out of the powerbrokers closest, the more videos we see of the morality of ACORN, the more we hear about “rape-rape,” the more we see the make-it-up-as-we-go-along personal lives of the people running this country, the more you will find people on my side of the fence wanting a say in who gets elected.

If this makes you uncomfortable, my sincere regrets because we would like you along. But we’ve seen what going along to get along has brought us to. The crisis the country is facing is more a crisis of the spirit than one of materialism. Until you understand that, you don’t understand the problem.

Classical Values? Seems like a bad joke.

Kate, Do you think that you can shrink the size of government...or just slow its growth? Do you beleeeeve that you can shrink it? And as for the Revolution...dream on. There will be no shrinking of government nor of hydrocarbon production (except that caused by world-wide recession/depression.) That's just a couple of "facts," I would say. Now lefties will talk as if one could shrink the hydocarbons and righties will talk as if one could shrink government, but common sense, and all of history dictate otherwise.

and one last thing,

actually listen to Beck a few times before you call him crazy.

Beck is the best friend the Libertarian Party has ever had, if the Libertarian Movement is to ever actually accomplish anything it must now embrace ppl like Beck and Palin, or you can all go back to your debating society.

Civil tactics do not work against evil enemies. In fact, civil tactics have only worked a very few times in world history, and then only against good folks who'd lost their way.

Other people have said it better above. Grow up. This isn't a pillow fight any more. How many more industries need to be nationalized before you understand that?

(And don't tell me they aren't evil because they have good intentions. A hotel fire isn't evil either, but it doesn't care who it hurts. Do you want to help us fight it?)

Ben,

The statists on the right bother me as much as the statists on the left.

It is why I call the Drug War "Republican Socialism". I'm anti-socialist. I'm against "God Damn America" - I don't care who mouths it - the right in its genteel fashion or the left in gutter language.

If the Republicans were a libertarian party with the socons as fringe elements I'd be happy with them. Very happy.

"If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism." - Ronald Reagan

I am loathe to exchange one brand of statists for another. I don't care much for "Faith Based Initiatives".

I'll let Eric speak for himself (I know the answer) but I voted for Palin/McCain in 2008 and I'm still a big Palin fan. She keeps her religion where it belongs - in her private life.

OH yeah. I voted Bush in 2004 and Obama over Keyes. (I was a Harry Browne supporter in 2000, but that was before 9/11).

I talked about the mistake we make trying to force civility.

The problem isn't that some people are rude and other people want to be all intellectual and civil and what all... but that the intellectuals aren't "talking about the need to be civil" they're trying to enforce civility on others.

When the most energy is spent on policing other people, we've got a problem. (And not just a philosophical one.)

By all means, be civil, be intellectual, present that alternative. Take this opportunity to articulate why libertarian views are the strongest ideas and ideas that ought to be implemented. Explain the market and how it works and why self-interest works best to create a system where the most people can prosper and why capitalism is a good thing and why it destroys human dignity to remove risk.

No one has to become populist but it's the populists that have the energy to push it all forward. People protesting understand that larger government is worse government, that it's impossible to get anything for "free", that they're being spoken down to by people who think they know better.

Maximum freedom and liberty means individuals making decisions which will, in aggregate, be better than centralized decision making. Some individual choices will be worse, some will be much better, but all together the system with maximum freedom is stronger, more flexible, and more effective.

And it's not possible to have that if so much effort is going to stifle the individuals who seem to be making poor choices.

Eric,

I don't think I am misinterpreting your comment. You say:
"but for those of us who don't like conservatism, the more muscular it becomes, the harder it is to ignore."

There can be no question about your position, you want an anti-Obama party that is NOT conservative. There are a lot of those out there. The Republicans ran one last year as their Presidential candidate. That did not work out so well, so you want to do it again.

I believe we are treading on the hem of insanity by people who like to think of themselves as well balanced.

So your problem isn't with conservatism, it's how certain conservative personalities, none of whom are actually people in office or anything more than opinion-mongers, act. You say your dislike for Obama hasn't turned you to conservatism, yet you make no criticism of conservatism. You just whine about "right-wing Alinskyism."

These kinds of stupid posts are a dime a dozen in the conservative blogosphere, and it really makes you wonder if they aren't part of some concerted campaign.

Honestly it's about time people like the author just step aside. They are the reason the country is in the shape it is in. You're the ones who voted for Republicans for years despite being libertarians (and the idea of a libertarian being turned off by aggressive politics is a joke, Eric, sorry, you must not get around much in the libertarian community) and then did nothing to keep them in line, you're the ones that at sat at home and allowed the Democrats to take Congress and the White House, and now you're the ones that can't decide whether to shit or go blind because the Right is mad as hell and doing something other than yelling at their TVs. Don't shit, don't go blind. Just go away.

Moneyrunner,

Praying to Christ in public schools offends my Jewishness.

chaos,

You wish your blog (do you have one?) got the attention CV gets.

And neither you nor Moneyrunner understand Republican libertarians. So let me make it clear:

Leave Us The FUCK alone

Out of our wallets. Out of our bedrooms.

and just in case you didn't get it the first time.

Leave Us The FUCK alone

There is a natural alliance between Conservatism and Libertarianism that has been diminished if not destroyed by the Bushies and their pals in the Country Club. The Huckster hasn't helped.

Conservatism favors social solutions derived from tradition over innovations derived from evident reason alone. Liberalism claims to be predicated upon reason alone, but often pursues an anti-traditional agenda.

Traditionally government stood aside and let other institutions, family and church, do stuff like feeding the hungry, housing the homeless, raising children. Power has traditionally been vested in the people. These traditions used to define Conservatism. I see that as the bridge where Conservatives and Libertarians meet.

However, certain religious movements starting with Charles Grandison Finney got involved in politics, hoping to seize control of the Government and bring in the Kingdom of Heaven. Starting with the Abolitionists and proceeding through Prohibition. Bush and now Huckabee have tapped into this religious activism and it has driven a wedge between the rest of the Reagan coalition and the Libertarians.

The real challenge for my dream girl, Sarah Palin, is to prove to the Libertarians that despite her excellent standing with the Religious Right she's not part of that same thread of religious activism. Abortion can be opposed on civil grounds (government must secure the rights of the unborn) or upon ethical/religious grounds (the sixth commandment). I think that's the litmus test to ascertain whether she can put Ronnie Raygun's ruling coalition back together.

The real challenge for the Religious Right is to respect non-Christians or Christians who disagree about sex, drugs and rock & roll. I'm a Christian and I'll quote Commandments when we're talking personally, but when we're talking politics, my Bible's closed. Since an activist, big government is going to fish in my Church or my family's pond, I'm going to stand with you shouting stop.

Simon, that's just the kind of attitude that has kept libertarians a easily-ignored, easily derided faction of the political scene.

If any percentage of them are like you, all I can say is KEEP IT UP!

"Libertarians? Who gives a shit... they didn't help us WIN this election, they stood around and badmouthed us while we worked and took risks; now they want favors? Fuck 'em."

Soon come, bubba.

Huckabee?

oh how i loathe him...

he's a progressive christian, and i can't think of a worse combo for our nation. most christians aren't like him they believe God gave us free will for a reason and demands we exercise it according to our beliefs, if you have no beliefs then you don't have much to exercise. Christians who would use the power of the State to enforce their views are no christians and are working contrary to God's gift of free will.

Yeah Dwight, I believe government can be shrunk. It will be painful and to quote Jefferson, the blood of patriots and tyrants may very well run but the money is running out and inflation is coming. Unemployment is almost at 10% and actually 17% when you adjust it to include part time workers who lost full time jobs and have given up looking for that 40 hour work week. Things are going from bad to worse. The day is coming soon when the government will be forced to drastically cut spending which will mean WE HAVE SHRINKAGE!

Of course, Reagan was civil; perhaps in a way that Clinton was not and Carter was not. I agree that Reagan's demeanor was a true asset, but that did not stop the opposition and press from endless mean-spirited attacks on him. In fact, both Bushes are also very personable, polite and civil; both remained gracious despite horrible attacks against them. Were they ever given credit for their civility? Absolutely not. The only politicians ever publicly credited with civility are the rare Democrats having such trait - Moynihan, Kennnedy, et al. That's the way our media works. Thus, those conservatives bemoaning the waning of civility among conservatives battling in the public sphere have a point but should acknowledge that it is debatable, not axiomatic, that its loss is a bad thing for conservatives. Moreover, given the enormity of the threats to conservative values, we are at a stage, for once, where the ends do justify the means. They didn't when linton ws around, but they do now..

Hello Eric,

Per

Cincinnatus · October 3, 2009 02:29 PM,

Nessus · October 3, 2009 02:46 PM,

&

Carol Herman · October 3, 2009 03:28 PM

Could you please render examples of right wing Alinskyism?

Hello Eric,

Per

Cincinnatus · October 3, 2009 02:29 PM,

Nessus · October 3, 2009 02:46 PM,

&

Carol Herman · October 3, 2009 03:28 PM

Could you please render examples of right wing Alinskyism?

M. Simon is right about the prayer in public schools, but he doesn't explain how to solve the problem.

We can't continue to have public schools. Public schools are not acceptable in a country with no cultural consensus. Lessons taught to children must be decided by parents, not by politics.

There's no reason to let the content of school lessons divide and distract us any more.

We don't need "the right people" in government to make our choices for us. We need to eliminate government's role and handle it ourselves.

Dave P.,

I vote regularly for Don Manzullo and voted for Palin/McCain. You might want to check Don out. He is personally a socon and yet keeps winning in a largely D district. How does he do it? Well he focuses on issues, small business, drilling for oil, and leaves his religion out of politics. He regularly gets 60% of the vote in a D district. You can look it up.

If you think you can win election with a socon agenda I think Alan Keyes deserves another shot against Obama to test that theory.

Palin is my gal.

And Down With Republican Socialism

And Government Out Of The Churches

Ben,

Re: schools. I'm with you.

But DaveP. I'm not a Libertarian. In so far as I have a party I'm a Republican. I voted Palin/McCain in '08 and Bush in '04. And campaigned for both tickets.

Palin is my girl.

Alan Keyes vs Obama was the genius move of State Senator Dave Syverson. My State Senator. He could have gone for Oberweiss who might have had a better chance against Obama. Lots of Republicans in Illinois voted against Keyes. Look up the numbers in Illinois on Kerry/Bush and Obama/Keyes. It is a shockah.

In fact of course I'm not a strict Party man. I'm independent. The numbers say you can't win without independents. Of course if you want to keep their influence from the party - have at it.

Conservatism favors social solutions derived from tradition over innovations derived from evident reason alone.

That's continental conservatism, created by Burke and adopted in large measure by Buckley. It is not American, and should be largely deprecated in favor of just three precepts, "cut away molded branches", "prudence is in fact a virtue", and "if it doesn't pick my pockets or break my knees, it's none of my business".

Also, please strike evident in favor of pretend reason. There's precious little to see in "liberalism's" results to see reason was involved.

However, certain religious movements starting with Charles Grandison Finney got involved in politics, hoping to seize control of the Government and bring in the Kingdom of Heaven. Starting with the Abolitionists and proceeding through Prohibition. Bush and now Huckabee have tapped into this religious activism and it has driven a wedge between the rest of the Reagan coalition and the Libertarians.

And why praytell is that? What loss has it brought you, or threatened you with? Really, name it.

There is a natural alliance between Conservatism and Libertarianism that has been diminished if not destroyed by the Bushies and their pals in the Country Club. The Huckster hasn't helped.

Again, what are you really worried about? I think it's something that will never, ever happen, even if Huckabee gets elected. BTW, among likely right leaning and committed voters, Huckabee polls in low single digits. For real, what's the what?

Yes, he makes my skin crawl. He doesn't worry me in the slightest.

The real challenge for my dream girl, Sarah Palin, is to prove to the Libertarians that despite her excellent standing with the Religious Right she's not part of that same thread of religious activism.

Why does she have to prove that when there's no trace of it in her record?

Where is your head at and why don't you take it out of there?

Kate wrote, "Things are going from bad to worse. The day is coming soon when the government will be forced to drastically cut spending which will mean WE HAVE SHRINKAGE!"

Is that how it worked in the Depression? Did people trow out FDR when the Depression went on and on? No! When people are down and out they want the government to help them. Such conditions are not a fertile breeding ground for tough love, pulling yourself up by your own bootstraps etc.

A person with no job does not particularly care if other people's taxes go up, so don't hold your breath waiting for bad times to turn people to the right. Yes, it will be easier to blame, even curse Obama, but not at all easy to beat him. You need someone with whom to beat him.

WWII ended The Depression, Dwight. Not to mention that if it hadn't been for FDR's lousy economic policies the Great Depression would have ended years sooner. Seven years by some estimates!

Victor Davis Hanson laid out a wonderful 10 point plan to get this country back on track in a PJ Media column today. I suggest you read it and perhaps you'll catch my drift.

I didn't say that FDR ended the Depression, but I said (or implied) that he was re-elected, time after time. Go figure.

By the way, WWII was a BIG government spending program. Big wars and big armies have always led to bigger government, but then almost everything does.

Its not hard to understand the doctrine of Libertarians. About fifteen minutes, and you'll have it all explained to you.

Or even thirty seconds....Keep Your Hands off unless it involves force or fraud.

Libertarianism is the simplest of all major political persuasions in the US.

Now, if you want to understand the unstated reasons why Libertarians do what they do, instead of the stated it is a little more complicated.

And you have to get into the unstated reasons if you want to understand why they hate socons. Personally, I say don't bother. Just hit them in the head with a rhetorical stick at the start of every conversation. Those that have the capacity for reason will understand that their usual games of blowhard intimidation aren't going to work, and you can then work with them. The very few others will go wander off somewhere doing no real harm to anyone.

Of course, there are those that don't require a slap in the face to return to reality, and we treasure those. I thought Mr. Schiei was one of those. After all, he's talked about the virtues of fusionism.

I don't want to be this harsh, but one or two facts needs to be kept in mind. Sixty to one. Sixty socons for every libertarian, and most of the socons are tougher when it comes down to it. Once you see those facts, you realize that Libertarians are trying to blow themselves up like puffer fish to see far more impressive than they are.

Now, if you're a libertarian that wants to work together. Ignore everything I've said. Its not about you. And 'hey, glad to meetcha''.

Oh, grow up. Nobody gets exactly what they want in politics. The best you can do is influence the swing voters. So go suck your thumb if you like, but quit sulking on line.

Is that what Classical Values means? I seem to recall a lot of references to God and moral values in Cato's Letters. If you want God out of politics, you're going to have a long long wait. Become a liberal.

Dwight, this will be my last comment on the subject. FDR wasn't given the bum's rush sooner because America was at war and nobody wanted to change horses mid-stream.

There is a HUGE difference between military build up and spending in order to win a war and the porkapalooza that we are witnessing today by our spendthrift congress. I think the majority of Americans have had it and come 2010, 2012 some change is gonna come alright and heads are going to roll, figuratively.

I think part of it is that "conservatism" is a vary broad label, including both some fairly strict (in the sense of extending regulations, such as "blue laws"), and those who are basically libertarian in philosophy, and many other varieties.

What they have in common is a general commitment to individual freedom; yet each draws the line or has different presuppositions.

For example, almost everyone agrees that one legitimate purpose of government is to protect an innocent person from being killed by someone else at that other person's whim. But a problem arises over the question: is an unborn child (or foetus) an "innocent person"? That's the abortion issue in a nutshell.

"Conservatives" come down on both sides of the issue, depending on their answer to the question. So it is with other issues. The main issue is not state control of people -- most conservatives are more-or-less "agin it" -- it is protecting the 'innocent' from the 'predator'.

Not all issues are so clearly differentiated -- think drug laws -- but many are. [Aside: I don't do drugs; I've had some success with 'Religious Right' conservatives in arguing against draconian drug laws by appealing to what, in essence, is a libertarian philosophy within Christian theology. It is there, believe it or not, based mainly upon a distinction in purpose between the state (government) and the church (Christians). But that's a matter for books, not for a blog comment! :-) ]

Back to the topic. I have found it *much* easier, in the main, to deal with differences within 'conservatism' (and within the 'Religious Right') than I have with differences between conservatives/libertarians in their dealings with the Left.

YMMV, of course, but I think there's a lot of common ground. More so than with the other.

Both the Republican and Democratic parties are corrupt up to their eyeballs (except Ron Paul) and to expect either one of them to be anything but reckless, stupid and criminally incompetent is a waste of time. They couldn't care less what you believe, and switching back and forth between them solves nothing. They have successfully prevented competition from other parties by writing rigged party organization laws, rigged ballot access laws, districts rigged by gerrymandering, incomprehensible campaign finance laws and hosted phony two-wings-of-one-party debates. The craven and traitorous press threw in with them long ago. Perot spent $100 million to build a party and it evaporated when he cut off the spigot. You have to use an existing national party because it is too expensive, difficult and time-consuming to build a new one. The only possibilities are the Constitution and Libertarian parties. The Constitution party is religiously based, and therefore fatally flawed as a political vehicle. The Libertarian party has a repeated 50 state ballot history, a strong philosophical and legal foundation and a 40-year identity as the party of liberty. If everyone who was at the 9/12 DC tea party (my wife and I were there, too) joined the LP and sent them $100 they could be a viable option in 2010. They should throw out the platform, run on the Constitution alone and recruit 435 + 33 federal candidates to run in a single, national campaign. Pin both of these rotten gangs with every scandal, every debt, every war and every lie. Audit the Fed, yes, then audit every penny in every single government department. OPEN THE BOOKS, FIND THE CROOKS.

I consider myself a libertarian. I am fiscally conservative. I believe in the individual and freedom for the individual.

There are a number of challenges that libertarians and conservatives face.

One is involvement. Libertarians and conservatives in general despise government and want it to do as little as possible - all for good reasons. This belief, while accurate, has also led most to stay on the sidelines when it comes to political involvement. They may be informed, but not actively engaged in the process of running, holding office and limiting the power of government whenever elected.

Liberals and leftists, on the other hand, love government. They think about it, study it, create ridiculous plans about how to use it solve perceived problems. They get involved in government because they love it. Once elected, they also get drunk on power and have used all of their love of government to entrench and perpetuate themselves.

If true libertarians and conservatives are going to take back America, then they need to get involved in government. You can't leave it to RINOs and expect a favorable outcome.

posts like this sadden me, especially when followed by comments like this. America is in a state where ideology should be secondary to process. Amerca's process is so screwed up that any conservative, moderate, or liberal interested in good government should be supporting transparency and accountability, period.

Eh, true Reagan/Goldwater conservatism died during the Bush administration. Between GWB's big (domestic) spending and the truly frightening civil liberties/constitutional balance of power agenda his administration pushed and the Republican congress went along with, true "small government" conservatives have been cast into the political wilderness.

Today, we have two dangerous and distasteful political options. We have Democrats grasping for ill-fated political control of the economic levers of society, spending far more money than the nation can afford, pushing a rather nasty civil liberties agenda and trying to stifle dissent with cries of racism/fascism. On the Republican side we have a group committed to an economic agenda that dismally failed to protect Americans from the rapacious elements of a market economy, spending somewhat more money than the nation can afford and pushing a VERY nasty civil liberties agenda. The good news on the Republicans is that at least they are tolerant of dissent.

And in both parties you have a spin-driven professional political culture that tolerates and occasionally exalts hypocrisy, dishonesty and a quest for power for its own sake.

Jim's comment above starts:

"Both the Republican and Democratic parties are corrupt up to their eyeballs (except Ron Paul)..."

Jim should just say "I'm 100% completely useless and only like to complain because I'm a crank."

This is silliness. it's so very trendy right now to say things like, "well, i hate labels." etc. but the fact is labels MEAN something. besides, you join a political party because you share in the ideology of the party to a large degree. sure, you might not agree with everything in the platform, but you probably agree with most of it otherwise you wouldn't affiliate yourself with it in the first place. but this isn't even the point. the point is that YOU believe what YOU believe independent of what other people think. have you not arrived at your own conclusions? have you not made your own observations of the world and thought, "hmm, well i don't support that." the point is, why should you care about what someone else does? do you vote republican or dem based on whether you LIKE the people? NO! you vote based upon YOUR OWN principles! so quite worrying about whether "conservatives" are being "too pushy," and worry about yourself. why would the actions of others change what you have observed to be true, and more importantly, why are your beliefs dependent upon the actions of someone else?

this is the dumbest, most intellectually shallow and pathetic thing i have read in a long time. but i suppose spending too much time in the ivory tower of leftism, which teaches one that discriminating, or making a value judgement of any kind is BAD is really at fault here.

labels are ok. they are simply shorthand for one's principles and premises. and let's be honest, conservatism by any other name is still classical liberalism. period.

To the M. Simons of the Libertarian set:

And neither you nor Moneyrunner understand Republican libertarians. So let me make it clear:

Leave Us The FUCK alone

Out of our wallets. Out of our bedrooms.

and just in case you didn't get it the first time.

Leave Us The FUCK alone

You are totally wrong, we do understand you.

You are the guy who picks up a rock when the Left hits us with a bat and throws it at us. You are the guy who kicks us when the Left has knocked us down. You are the guy who likes to see out values trashed, but when we decide to get back in the fight, tell us to shut up and sit down because we’re causing trouble.

Well, fuck you Jack, right back at you. We have done it despite you before and we don’t need “friends” like you.

Just because Ronald Reagan was civil doesn't mean he wasn't assertive. C'mon people, the rest of the world feared him. Just ask the Russians about Rejavic (sic). He ripped his opponents to shreds but did it disarmingly. Just ask Mondale during the 1984 debates. Reagan was as assertive as any POTUS I've seen in my lifetime.

Reagan was a rare gift. A man who could channel the anger of his times through a filter and turn it into a weapon to be wielded with sharp, biting wit that was effective at advancing libertarian conservatism.

Nothing hsas changed since then except the fact that you people think that anger should be ignored rather than harnessed. Therein lies the whole problem with GOP today. There is a belief that the anger is unjustified and if only we were civil while being screwed by Republicans and Democrats alike, the world be oh so much better. Well, it's not. Someone needs to harness the justified anger of the individualists in America. That someone could be a "disarmingly nice, affable, avuncular guy" in a vein similiar to Reagan or it's going to be a modern day Thomas Paine or someone along those lines in the "hang 'em all" camp. Personally I prefer the Reagan type but if the GOP doesn't wake up and soon, people are going to start looking for the other type. Either way, they better also be assertive enough to actually advance the libertarian conservative agenda, not just RINOs in the Bush (family).

Also, note FDR was elected only once during wartime for the US. He ran three times during peacetime, for the US (1932, 1936 and 1940 - the US didn't enter WWII until Dec 1941. Remember Pearl Harbor).

I don't think socons and libertarians have any problems working together. However, the Socons currently dominating the GOP, like Huckabee, are not small government Socons. They want the levers of power in their hands to impose their beliefs over others. Small government Socons want the levers dismantled so the government can not interefere in anyone's right to belief as they see fit.

After all, wasn't Reagan a Socon? Huckebee, sir, is no Reagan.

Kennycan,
I suspect we can work together. However consider this...you have values you want to impose, so does Huckabee, so does Hillary for that matter. Imprecise terminology leads to illogical thought.

Its not the imposition of values that is wrong, its the imposition of incorrect values. These values may be good values, but as I've heard preachers say 'you can't do God's work with the devil's methods'. A good value used improperly is an incorrect value.

I do think libertarians and socons have a problem working together because too many libertarians would rather start a fight than attack the Main Enemy :). But you're obviously not one of those, and thank you for that.

So the question remains, is Huckabee trying to advance good values with bad methods, or even outright bad values? I don't know. I do know that a lot of the attacks on him seem more motivated by anti-religious feelings, and by the fact that he went to the U of Ark rather than Harvard.

And right now, I'm a Palin supporter.

Children don't like their medicine. They will say it tastes bad and they don't need it. When they grow up they don't behave this way any more.