Leaning Republican
A good friend of mine recently described me as a libertarian that leans Republican. After reflection, I concluded that I am a libertarian that leans away from Democrat, so I suppose he is right – it is all a matter of perspective.
The difference between the modern day Democrat Party and the modern day Republican Party is that Republicans are un-libertarian, while Democrats are anti-libertarian. On many issues, the trajectory of GOP and Libertarian positions are the same but Republican endpoints fall far short of our Libertarian counterparts. On most issues, however, Democrat positions are diametrically opposed to the Libertarian view. Distance is more easily overcome than direction.
And the more extreme the GOP position, the closer it tends to be to the Libertarian view, while the more extreme Democrat positions widen the gap between us. It should not surprise anyone that libertarians will tend to vote Republican more often than Democrat in a tight lesser-of-two-evils contest or when we have no candidate of our own on the ballot.
Nor should it surprise anyone that libertarians often run as Republicans while rarely running as Democrats. There is a strong libertarian strain in the Republican Party – the Goldwater legacy – that produces national candidates like Ron Paul, or state candidates like the late Ed Thompson who are clearly not mainstream GOP, but bring enthusiasm and activism and bona fide small government ideas to bear on campaigns and governance.
I know of no such libertarian wing in the Democrat party. Even in areas where we should find some common ground – personal liberty, equal rights, de-militarization of foreign policy – the Democrats’ fondness for government-imposed social order and collective duty present a divide too big to cross.
The Libertarian Party platform contains 26 planks that outline libertarian positions on personal liberty, economic liberty, and security. Here is the list for anyone who wants to see what we libertarians are all about on the major issues.
In the statement of principles that precede these numbered platform planks, we state clearly the ideas that form policy positions that have remained consistent over all the years I have been associated with the libertarian movement. Our view of the fundamental role of government is so different from that of liberal/progressive Democrats that it is difficult for me to imagine a single Democrat friend of mine agreeing with this LP statement of principle:
“Since governments, when instituted, must not violate individual rights, we oppose all interference by government in the areas of voluntary and contractual relations among individuals. People should not be forced to sacrifice their lives and property for the benefit of others. They should be left free by government to deal with one another as free traders; and the resultant economic system, the only one compatible with the protection of individual rights, is the free market.”
Conversely, I would hazard a guess that most Republicans would agree with the statement, as far as it goes. That is, until I mention drugs, gays, China, or the Patriot Act – in which cases liberty gets flung out the window in wholesale lots to chase the illusion of security or moral order.
Next week is Wisconsin’s Presidential Primary. One of four remaining GOP candidates will likely be sworn into office in January of 2013 and his first order of business will be the FY2014 budget. There are three GOP candidates that will spend more than President Obama programmed for FY2013 and one that will cut spending by $1 trillion.
There are three GOP candidates who have committed to military action against Iran and propose extension of our commitments in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Yemen, Libya, and who knows where else by the time this year is over, and one who will defend this country first and only. There are three GOP candidates who will try to engage in government-to-government negotiations of trade terms between the two largest economies in the world, and one that will let traders trade and markets function.
There are three candidates who will lobby the Federal Reserve to modify its monetary policy slightly at the edges and one who will end the Fed. Three will dictate a new agenda to the Department of Education and one will abolish it. Three will tinker with the tax code and one will shut down the IRS. Three will change government energy policy and one will eliminate the Department of Energy – along with dozens of other departments, agencies, and grey-area entities whose main purpose is to thwart the Constitution and prevent people from living free.
Do I lean Republican? Well, I definitely lean towards ONE Republican. Santorum wants a government more churchy, Romney more efficient, Gingrich more profoundly transformational or less fundamentally absurd…or something. Ron Paul doesn’t want a churchy, efficient, profound government – he wants one that is Constitutionally limited. So do we.
That Constitution is the tie that binds libertarians and conservatives together on so many issues and erects insurmountable barriers between libertarians and liberals on nearly everything. The conventional wisdom is that winning independents in the general election requires running to the middle, compromising on principle, and erasing your primary positions like an Etch-a-Sketch.
I don’t think so; I think winning independents requires standing on Constitutional principles and betting the ranch on liberty. The beautiful thing about freedom is that we can all want it for different reasons and we all get what we want. One guy has been resolute in his defense of freedom and Constitutional government for longer than I have been paying attention.
Vote Ron Paul.
We need your help! If you like PunditHouse, please consider donating to us. Even $5 a month can make a difference!
Short URL: https://pundithouse.com/?p=9272
