The Republican Dichotomy
OLD-SCHOOL CONSERVATISM VERSUS MILLENNIAL REPUBLICANISM
By Mande Wilkes
FITSNews – May 28, 2008 – As social libertarians and fiscal conservatives, we always struggle a bit when it comes to political labeling. Certainly we’re not Democrats, but alas, “Republican” doesn’t seem right either – certainly not in its current form.
Anyway, in what is probably the best-ever explanation of the current mutilated state of Republicanism (well next to Mande’s), columnist Megan McArdle juxtaposes two quotes to draw the distinction between current “conservatism” and the stuff of yesteryear.
From Ronald Reagan:
“If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism. … The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is.”
And from Rick Santorum:
“One of the criticisms I make is to what I refer to as more of a libertarianish right. … This whole idea of personal autonomy, well I don’t think most conservatives hold that point of view. Some do. They have this idea that people should be left alone, be able to do whatever they want to do, government should keep our taxes down and keep our regulations low, that we shouldn’t get involved in the bedroom, we shouldn’t get involved in cultural issues … well, that is not how traditional conservatives view the world and I think most conservatives understand that individuals can’t go it alone. That there is no such society that I am aware of, where we’ve had radical individualism and that it succeeds as a culture.”
Ostensibly spoken by two bottom-of-the-heart conservatives, the dichotomy between these statements succinctly illuminates where the Republican party went wrong. No wonder Reagan has an airport and a Nimitz-class aircraft carrier named after him, whereas “Santorum” has been memorialized somewhat differently.
Comments
By Mickey Blue Eyes on May 28th, 2008 at 6:59 am
Are you *sure* Santorum is a Republican or “conservative”? What he’s saying is pure Socialism. What he’s saying sounds like a plank on the Democrat platform.
I’m afraid to say it but he’s kinda right in some areas, but not in the areas he’s thinking of. With mad cow disease in the meat packing industry and deadly poisonous pet food and childrens’ toys from China, we need Federal regulation to keep the food supply safe and products on the shelf that should not have lead be lead-free.
What we definitely don’t need is the Socialist nanny state that afflicts Canada and Europe.
By Individual for Liberty on May 28th, 2008 at 7:44 am
And just think – supposedly there is only a tiny sliver of people in our country(call them libertarians, far right republicans, intelligent, or just people who like to follow the Constitution) that believe in fiercely protecting individual liberty and also that the federal government is basically only in existence to defend our border and country and protect our individual liberties.
It almost sounds radical going back to the way our Founders set us up.
By Jeff Snildon on May 28th, 2008 at 8:36 am
first off, you are taking Santorum out of context. He was speaking of specific socal issues, not all of life.
Look, it would be great if the government would actually leave us alone and if people would actually leave each other alone. BUT THEY DONT. We have murder laws and police to enfoce those laws. I support this government intervenion. But that does not make me a socialist. Just as the government has a role to play in protecting adults, it should play a role in protecting children. I wish it didn’t have to, but liberals and true libertarians would prefer to sit back and let over 4,000 unborn children face the knife and vacuum each day in America. That is just wrong. So yes, the govt should intervene and stop murder. I’m not a soialist for saying that.
How the crap can you put up a picture of Reagan and then call the pro-life position socialist? What good is it to support tax cuts if you also support genocide of the “unwanted?”
This blog is going moderate, and its really disappointing. Its ok if yall want to spend your time bashing the loudest voices for fiscal conservatism (Rush, Coulter, and Santorum), but at least stop pretending to be the “true” conservative. It never ceases to amaze me how people can feel snug and content in their love of low taxes while they turn their eyes and plug their ears to the screams of thousands of innocent babies every single day. Shame on yall.
By piepton on May 28th, 2008 at 8:37 am
Mickey, this is the part that makes that statement not gel with the Democrat platform – “we shouldn’t get involved in the bedroom, we shouldn’t get involved in cultural issues”.
International trade, national defense, these are things that the government needs to regulate and provide because they effect the nation as a whole. Deciding what you’re allowed to do in the bedroom or what church you decide to attend are only things that Santorum and his fellow “traditional conservatives” would think of regulating.
By CL on May 28th, 2008 at 9:33 am
There is alot of misunderstanding of terms here, because labels are applied and adopted haphazardly and even incorrectly over time. Conservatism and libertarianism are not necessarily in conflict. Conservatism as a political philosophy (as opposed to a group of self identified conservatives in the U.S., like Reagan) refers to a preference for tradition and gradual change that does not disturb the established order (i.e. not throwing the baby out with the bathwater). Conservatism’s opposite is radicalism or anarchism.
You can be a conservative libertarian or an anarchist libertarian.
Libertarianism is a philosophy focusing on individual liberty and limited government. Its opposite philosophy is communism, but before you get there you pass progressivism (modern liberalism), fascism, and various other socialistic forms of government.
The American Right is generally conservative and libertarian (or, to confuse matters further, classically liberal). You can drift from this position in different directions. You can be more radical in how you want to transform government. You can drift away from libertarianism to progressivism as you come to believe in more and more government regulation and limitation of private enterprise.
Drift in both directions (radical change and more governmental intervention) far enough away from the Right and you will reach the other extreme – Barack Obama.
By Jeff Snildon on May 28th, 2008 at 1:44 pm
“Social libertarian” = social liberal
Any true, consistent libertarian supports gay marriage, abortion, cloning, prostitution, drugs, etc. To oppose any if these things would make them an inconsistent libertarian, and some of them do try this approach of having it both ways.
True libertarianism is noting to be proud of, as you refuse to defend the rights of the unborn to life and liberty. But rather than dealing with this reality, you attack Santorum as a socialist. How shameful! You do not represent Reagan, so don’t put up his picture above a weak attack on the strongest defender of the unborn that the Senate has seen in a long time. It is a shame that you misrepresented Santorums comments.
I hope this is not the continuing trend on this blog.
By smart kid Grant on May 28th, 2008 at 2:02 pm
well, lets see… umm… yeah… where is the libertarian philosophy anymore? There has to be some social issues that everyone can agree on right? right? oh well, I guess that at least it isn’t total anarchy…
PS: Sic Willie, you should write a piece on what you talked about with us today over the club issue.
By Cal on May 28th, 2008 at 2:24 pm
I think Mike Munger, North Carolina’s Libertarian candidate for guv, might just be the next Ronald Reagan. If he could pull a Jesse Ventura-styled upset in the Tarheel State, social libertarians and fiscal conservatives might find themselves a new hero.
AND he’s hilarious…
http://mungowitzend.blogspot.com/2008/05/bill-o-day-control-beaver.html
(from his blog)
By That'dBeGreat on May 28th, 2008 at 3:46 pm
P.S. Sic, you should write a piece on that Blogland rumor about Jake Knotts, “the sheriff of the county,” and a solicitor being 1/3 owners of a strip club. Maybe it’s Southern Gentleman in Hayseedville. We don’t know. We have been put on a “Need to Know” basis. And we don’t like it worth a snit.
By That'dBeGreat on May 28th, 2008 at 3:47 pm
I see you are editing me again. Stop it.
By Make it Nixon ex Watergate on May 28th, 2008 at 7:28 pm
Reagan was a nut. Psychics in the Whitehouse and the Hollywood crowd. Give me the old school Nixonites anytime over Reagan.
If Watergate had not happened then, he would be one of the best POTUS ever.
By piepton on May 29th, 2008 at 8:44 am
“If Watergate had not happened then” – Watergate happened because Nixon was a paranoid bastard would do anything to win so he could try to lock up everybody who was part of the “counter-culture”, i.e. people who didn’t want to live like it was the 50’s anymore. Yes, if he wasn’t like that he would have been a pretty good president but that’s like saying if dubya wasn’t a moron his presidency would have gone over better.
Trackbacks