Whittaker Chambers, who many conservatives regard as their godfather, once counseled William F. Buckley to quit heeding the editorial intention of National Review – “standing athwart history and yelling stop”–and tactically adjust to history’s drift. He was speaking of the masses’ unwillingness to abandon Keynesian economics and for the Republican Party to accept, even embrace this.
In the aftermath of Obama’s re-election, conservatives once again need to accept history’s drift, not regarding economics but the changing culture. Despite the anger at this president by social conservatives, this group no longer wins elections. Former witch-turned-religous dingbat Christine O’Donnell, who was against the separation of church and state, cost the party senatorial control. The populace has accepted the realities of abortion and gay marriage either because they support them or because they regard them as here to stay. Obama was able to attract moms (but not dads) because of stupid statements by Republicans about rape being God’s will and calling those who want subsidized contraception “whores.”
Let’s be real: Obama was elected for reasons having nothing to do with economics (60% of the country disagrees with his economic policies and Romney led in the polls on who was best able to handle the economy). He was elected because of his powerful photo-op during Sandy (Chris Christie’s bear hug helped as well), because he was black (he commands 94% of the African American vote even though they have borne the brunt of his economic policies), because he supported gay marriage and abortion and federally funded contraception.
There is a strand of the Republican Party that is culturally on board with most of these issues that are apparently of such importance to moms that they are willing to risk four more years of failed economic policies.
They are called libertarians. Because of their fears of the government intruding into personal issues of morality, they support the right of people to live their lives the way they want, which includes the right to marry whoever they want and a woman’s right to choose. But these same big government fears put them at odds with Obama’s socialism. They are committed to getting government out of the way of innovative entrepreneurs.
It is time for the Republican Party to quit putting up Republicans who are moderate in the worst way: economically liberal (John McCain’s attacks on money in politics; Mitt Romney’s support of a healthcare bill in Massachusetts that was a carbon copy of ObamaCare) and socially conservative. Reasonable libertarians are just as moral as the social conservatives. The difference lies in their belief that the government has no business trying to make individuals more moral — that is as bad as the Marxists trying to change human nature.
And that is how to win elections.
Maybe it should be said that ‘Fiscally conservative and socially liberal.’ does not describe libertarians. Libertarians would not use government to coerce fiscal or social policies.
My preemptive strike for the “regionalized taxes” movement possibility–”No taxation without service compensation”
For about 30 years, I’ve called myself a libertarian, or a libertarian-conservative. Over that period, I’ve organized and operated several libertarian organizations. I’ve edited two libertarian publications: Suffolk Liberty and Free New York. I was at one time the chairman of the Suffolk County Society for Individual Liberty, the Suffolk County Libertarian Party, and the New York State Libertarian Party. I distanced myself from the LP long ago, upon becoming convinced that “the lunatics had taken over the asylum.” However, I continued to describe my politics as libertarian, always in lower-case.
This article has convinced me no longer to call myself a libertarian. From now on, I’m a “pro-freedom conservative.” Those, like Capshaw, who think that killing unborn babies is just peachy-keen, that marriage is a purely political institution with no wider significance than “whom you choose to love,” and that these supposed “rights” trump all the other considerations in political discourse can have the l-word to themselves.
I write for this site. Howdy to a fellow Suffolk County resident.
I agree with you Mr. Porretto. Frankly I consider myself small L libertarian as well but the big L folks lose me on many issues; illegal immigration, foreign policy, abortion. Considering how the control of abortion was removed from the states via Roe v. Wade, I would think a pure libertarian would agree with us. As for gay marraige, I don’t care what people do, it is none of my business. I do oppose changing the meaning of a many thousand year old word just the sake of a current fashion.
I hateto break it to you, but none of to sound like libertarians at all. The beauty of libertarians is consistency of philosophy, you have to remove your personal beliefs and consider the role of government. In other words, you don’t tell someone els what to do anymore than they tell you. Of course there is some government, but I should b limited. The only socia issue I can see being up for debate is abortion because I know several libertarians who argue te fetus has the right to life under the constitutuion. But if the mild, well reasoned article makes you question you libertarian stance, it couldn’t have been very strong in the first place (or what you weer calling libertarianism was something else all together).
So, you think we should have open borders.
The question is whether you would even have the immigration mess that you do now if you had an open border AND a libertarian government that only performed the proper roles of government. Without all the handouts, subsidies, regulation and so forth.
Why shouldn’t the US welcome anyone who is willing to work hard and be a successful on their own?
What a bunch of nonsense. You admit that Obama wins elections because he openly supports grave evil, and your advise to the Republicans is therefore—tolerate such evil yourselves! In doing so you will be able to win elections and get intrusive government off the backs of entrpreneurs.
I’m sorry, but this is foolish on many levels. First of all, you cannot do evil that good may come from it. That’s a moral precept.
Secondly, no good will even come of it anyway. It is doubtful in the extreme that any person who is on the liberal side of the social issues will be of much use to the Republican Party, the conservative cause, or the country. If gay marriage and abortion can be tolerated, what then is the meaning of conservatism? What are we even fighting for, entrepreneurial freedom? Please! That is (literally) throwing away the baby in order to keep the bathwater. Social conservatism is not the province of religious wingnuts, it is the only longterm solution to living and prospering in this world with even a modicum of stability and peace. Family matters, marriage matters, and the laws of God matter—infinitely more than entrepreneurship. Foster a decent society and the economy will take care of itself. Embrace evil and you will get chaos, decline, and death.
There you go again – disregarding the Constitution to do Good.
Do I understand correctly – It’s bad when socialists circumvent the Constitution to do their economic good. But it’s okay to use the Federal government to impose morals?
Your position makes no sense. How about we just have a very small government along with economic AND social freedom?
Both Republicans and Democrats are perfectly willing to abuse the Commerce Clause beyond any logic or reason to restrict us in ways that the founding fathers never intended. For those of us who want the government out of our lives, neither party is good. What the Romney campaign did to Ron Paul voters is undemocratic and shameful. The Republican establishment abused its powers and got punished by the puny minority of Ron Paul voters for doing so. Romney didn’t need those 3 million (mostly young) libertarian voters, did he? It is time for a new major party that refutes cronyism and that adheres to the original intent of our Constitution.
Slavery was protected by the Constitution until we amended the Constitution to ban it. It was a State’s rights issue until we decided that it was so offensive to human dignity that we had to federalize the issue via Constitutional Amendment, so we passed the 13th Amendment to free the slaves and ban slavery, and the 14th Amendment to declare those freed slaves and their descendants to be citizens.
Yep. I am a Libertarian and I my view of Conservatives is they are just as faithful to big government as progressives. They have just flipped the mandatory and forbidden list. It seems that the Conservative plan to balance the budget is Reagan like growth which would pay for the nanny state, except that the nanny state would support marriage and religion and discourage single moms and gay people and vice in general.
I want a small government that has stopped telling people how to live their lives, sound money, free markets, and a peace through strength policy which does not include providing free defense for other well off nations who refuse to defend themselves.
I think we can sell that to the middle.
To the Social Conservatives I say:
Don’t like abortion? Don’t get one.
Don’t want birth control? Don’t use it.
Don’t want Gay marriage? Marry someone of the opposite sex.
(Just for the record : I also am against having the government forcing private organizations to fund or accommodate any of the above behaviors.)
Don’t like gambling, drinking, recreational sex, drugs, or porn? Don’t do it.
Want a school where Christian values and Creationism are taught. Send your kids to a religious school on your dime. My parents did.
I believe that the absolutism on Abortion, Gay Rights, and Creationism displayed by the Christian Right costs us more in elections than their vote helps us. Effectively helping to elect radical Socialists, which is what you just did, to maintain your posture of ideological purity is folly. The Socialists will persecute you because they hate you, the Libertarians will leave you alone because we really don’t care what you believe as long as you don’t want to use the government to force others to do things your way.
I’m with you, man, but I’m afraid we’re not going to get anywhere with the social conservatives. By “calling those who want subsidized contraception “whores”” (to quote Capshaw), these guys show they really don’t get the fundamental issue: what’s wrong with subsidized contraception is not that it’s “contraception”, but that it’s “subsidized”. It would have been wrong even if she had asked for “subsidized rosebushes” or “subsidized bibles”, instead.
But our social conservative “friends” would have gladly subsidized bibles and apple pies – and in that, fundamental, sense they are the same as the Democrats, unfortunately.
Thank you Old Guy and Another Old Guy – We CANNOT legislate morality. The appropriate answer that the two senatorial candidates should have given to the obvious “gotch” questions on abortion was – “Whatever my opinion on abortion, it should not be the federal governments responsibility to subsidize it when we are so far in debt.” Their verbal gaffes cost them (and us) two easy senate seats.
Ah, the classic “can’t legislate morality” line. Never gets old.
Banning partial birth abortion was a purely moral law, and a damned good one.
You “can’t legislate morality” folks never seem to notice that the very concept of legislation is moral. Nor do you ever notice when immorality gets legislated. There ARE sides, and legal abortion is not “value neutral.”
Partial Birth Abortion is a perfect example. The Religious Right doesn’t even have enough political muscle to get that outlawed, yet we make outlawing all abortions a central plank of our platform and then we lose winnable elections to radical socialists who are ruining the country.
The “War on Women” gambit was made possible by our alliance with the Christian Right.
My position still stands, we lose votes more than we gain by having the Christian Right in our coalition.
If instead, we focused on America’s real problem, runaway growth of the government, we’d attract lots of votes from the middle and get a good chunk of the few million Ron Paul voters as well. If that means the Evangelicals decide to stay home and help elect people who will force them to pay for abortions to teach a lesson to those who would end government funding of abortion, it just shows you can’t fix stupid.
Don’t like slavery? Don’t own a slave.
That is exactly the same as your logic, and it is an absurdity.
myth buster,
Your position is guaranteed to make the pro abortion party, which is also the pro slavery party of the 19th Century, the permanent majority, likely forever.
This is not a debating club argument about the perfect good vs the perfect evil. We either start winning elections or we are all screwed. I refuse to let this country devolve into a socialist police state so you can feel morally superior.
~ ~ ~
Fellow Republicans,
I offer myth buster and the other abortion absolutists as my evidence as to why these people need to be told to sit down and shut up or asked to leave the party. They will sink us in each and every election where they make an appearance and will doom America to a Democrat police state future.
The Libertarians are far more likely help you forge a center right majority than these zealots.
“Don’t like slavery? Don’t own a slave.
That is exactly the same as your logic, and it is an absurdity.”
No, it’s not exactly like his logic. If you choose to have an abortion, you are performing on your own body. If you choose to do drugs, you are taking that risk yourself, not on others. Slavery, on the other hand, entails stripping another human being of their individual rights. The two couldn’t be more distant.
Except you failed to account for the human that is aborted. No liberty for that unfortunate soul.
And this is EXACTLY what many people in the Liberty movement have been saying for years, but the Stupid Party doesn’t listen and treats us like red-headed stepchildren.
Guess what? It’s turning out a TON of social conservatives stayed at home rather than vote for Mitt, due to his past pro-choice stance. And it’s pretty obvious Akin and Mourdock really hurt the GOP this election cycle with their rape comments. So as a nation we take several more steps to Marxism because socons wanted to teach us a lesson and the liberty movement got ignored.
Dear Leader Obama it is. Take a bow.
This is a truly sickening article and I can only hope that the Mr. Capshaw is simply expressing rage at Barack Obama’s victory.
I had no idea that “libertarians” accept the use of their tax dollars to fund contraception and abortion or that religious institutions should be forced to support policies such as “federally funded contraception”.
I had no idea that “libertarians” do not believe business owners, based on their religious beliefs, should not have the right to decide whether or not to perform marital services for same-sex couples; this isn’t just “the Church” but also wedding planners and the like who have been taken to court by radical homosexuals in states that allow same-sex marriage because the business owners do not wish to violate their conscience and promote same-sex marriage.
I had no idea that “libertarians” wish to take the possibility of acquiring liberty away from a Person in the womb by allowing the killing of unborn children.
I agree with Francis (#3); although I have never called myself a libertarian I have often thought and said that I have “libertarian tendencies”. If “libertarian” means the acceptance of the above precepts then I am ashamed to have ever included myself in this political ideology.
Did you read the same article the rest of us did? I didn’t see anything about paying for birth control or abortions.
You didn’t read the article correctly.
“I had no idea that “libertarians” accept the use of their tax dollars to fund contraception and abortion or that religious institutions should be forced to support policies such as “federally funded contraception”.”
That is because they don’t. And, what is more, we wouldn’t force Catholics to fund abortion and birth control through their health care plans because we believe they have a right to decide that stuff for themselves. You guys just helped elect people who will force you to do all of the above with your insistence on ideological purity.
“I had no idea that “libertarians” do not believe business owners, based on their religious beliefs, should not have the right to decide whether or not to perform marital services for same-sex couples; this isn’t just “the Church” but also wedding planners and the like who have been taken to court by radical homosexuals in states that allow same-sex marriage because the business owners do not wish to violate their conscience and promote same-sex marriage.”
That is because we don’t. We believe you have a right to decide that stuff for yourself. You guys just helped elect people who will force you to do all of the above with your insistence on ideological purity.
“I had no idea that “libertarians” wish to take the possibility of acquiring liberty away from a Person in the womb by allowing the killing of unborn children.
”
We don’t. We leave people to figure that stuff out for themselves. You guys just helped elect people who will do just that with your insistence on ideological purity.
As I said before, Social Conservatives are also proponents of the nanny state, they just have a different social agenda to enforce. And what is more, your program scares the shit out of the middle and costs us elections.
It is obvious in your attitude here, that you divide the universe into the righteous few who believe exactly as you do and fornicating baby killers. That is a sure fire way to elect people who are going to bring on the end of Western Civilization and a new Dark Age because the vast majority of Americans reject your stand on these issues. And what is more, if any of our candidates stray from your vision of perfection, you’ll stay home and allow truly evil people to win to teach us a lesson. Those are not the kind of attitudes that build a winning coalition.
Nice jump in logic there. Jordan never made a claim about staying home and not voting, and yet you make the assumption.
How ’bout anyone who cast a vote for the asinine Libertarian Party. We can actually see their numbers.
And you make snide remarks about “ideological purity” and “vision of perfection.” One could easily lay those accusations on libertarians.
I have spent the last 34 years being an active Libertarian or Conservative and all those years there was always the threat from the Christian Right to stay home if they didn’t get their abortion language. Whatever one guys did or didn’t say in a single post can’t change that.
It is our kowtowing to your single issue obsession that enabled the “War on Women” gambit to succeed.
Again, I believe you guys cost us more votes than you bring to the table.
You guys haven’t even been able to outlaw partial birth abortion and yet you demand that we make abortion a central tenet of our campaigns. We have run that experiment enough times now. It loses elections.
Good answer, sir.
I mean good answer to Old Guy. Although you have a point about libertarians’ ideological purity, which can get irksome when you’re dealing with the Rothbard crowd.
I don’t want Libertarian purity either. I want a 51%+ coalition dedicated to Libertarian principles that is run by people who understand that half a loaf beats starving every time.
You can’t legislate anything if you don’t win.
It happens to be exactly my position. I’m glad there are other people out there who have the same strategy.
I don’t want Libertarian purity either. That is why I am a Republican-Libertarian. I realize you have to win to legislate and demanding purity loses every time it is tried.
Why is the government (at any level) even involved in abortion, gay marriage…?
WHY not leave it to the individual to decide and PAY for their choices with their OWN money?
You CANNOT legislate morality, the ongoing experience of Islamic countries and simple human nature are proof.
Remember, we were forged of MUD and dirt not gold or silver…
The United States WILL suffer a Greece moment in the fag end of Obama’s second term, hopefully the comming economic implosion will smack enough Americans awake that a discussion about HOW much government are we willing to ACTUALLY pay for followed by WHAT should it actually DO will result.
Or we will become a super-sized version of Argentina in 2001 whilst the world burns down around our ears.
Either way more “Change” is comming…
.
And another “CANNOT legislate morality” guy chimes in. There’s just no end to them. And the block capital “CANNOT” just like the one above. Man! I thought there was a ban on human cloning, but here you guys are!
Here’s a news flash for Republicans – once you give up the abortion thing, the current Democrat policy is incredibly vulnerable and unpopular.
Democrats can be absolutely destroyed on social freedom. Watch some of Obama’s followers loom stupid.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Skw-0jv9kts
Folks
Just for the record I was not in favor of forcing Catholic organizations to include abortions and contraceptives in their health plans. That is the kind of big intrusive government that makes me a libertarian. Nor was I advocating for the killing of babies, which, let’s be honest is what abortion is. But I believe that decision is up to individuals and not whoever is in charge of the state, be it pro-choice liberals or anti-abortion conservatives. I don’t want the government involved in any aspect of that most private of individual areas, sex. Sex police is not the province of America, but that of Nazi Germany and the Soviets.
Perhaps I should have announced in the article that I am a libertarian in favor of missile defense systems, drug-testing for school bus drivers and the death penality (although on the latter, like abortion, I can never make my mind up on). But I cannot share the sentiments of social conservatives who favor a similiar type of social engineering as the Marxist’s–the former believes you can use the government to make people more moral; the latter thinks you can change humans into mere chess pieces. Social conservatives like Christine O’Donell and Rick Santorum question the validity of the separation of church and state. Jefferson, like other Republicans/republicans was obsessed with this. The Founding Fathers in wanting to leave Old Europe behind, not only wanted kings out of the government but witch-hunting and inquisitions as well.
That is what I believe. I am horrified that half of the country voted for Obama but I cannot help thinking that it was because of the ideological rigidity of social conservatives. Romney could not get through the primary because of their obsession with gay marriage (such as the gift that cretin at one of the debates dropped in liberal laps by booing the gay soldier)and other social issues. What should have been focused on was his Obama-care type legislation he passed in Massachusetts.
Hence, politically and pragmatically I think the Party should move more toward libertarianism. Given the socialist bent of the Democratic Party today, we can no longer afford the luxury of focusing on a single issue like abortion, which frankly is not going away.
If you’re willing to admit that abortion is the killing of babies, you cannot then go on to say that it is a decision which should be left up to the individual. Individuals have no right to murder other individuals, especially innocent children, and it is precisely the role of the state to prevent and punish such crimes.
Your take on what constitutes the libertarian philosophy is incredibly historically contingent. Do not forget that abortion *was* illegal in this country in most places right up until 40 years ago. Were we an oppressed people back then? Were there fewer entrepreneurs, less economic dynamism, and less individual oppertunity in those days? No, of course not. You are only aware of abortion as an issue because it has been introduced as a wedge issue by the same Statists who want to suck dry your economic life. And in response to this you propose to leave people free to kill babies, if they will but leave you free to pursue your entrepreneurial visions. As such you have become the poster child for the Overton Window. You have fallen prey to the Gramscian device. In 1950 even a libertarian would have wretched at the idea of legal abortions. Now you are willing to abide the hideous deed because to prohibit it would necessitate government action. That is insane.
What is insane is focusing on this issue and losing elections because if it.
You cannot even get a ban on partial birth abortions, yet demand the GOP be in favor of ending all abortion as the price of your support. That is a sure fire way to lose time and time again. I say enough is enough.
The real problem we have is an out of control government that is taking our liberty and money and destroying the economic system that brought us prosperity. I think it is more important to focus on that, because if we don’t, you won’t even have the right to advocate for the Right to Life, it will be deemed hate speech and your churches will be shut down and your pastors arrested for speaking their minds on the subject.
The current government is already forcing Catholics to fund abortion and birth control yet you reject alliance with Libertarians who would leave you alone to do what you think is right. That is crazy.
And if 67% of the country were in favor of re-instituting slavery, would you sell out those targeted for enslavement in order to win elections, or would you say that this must be a line in the sand, and we must either win this battle or die trying?
You just died trying.
If the Republicans give up on a basic concept of morality, defending the defenseless, then it loses the SoCons. I could be wrong, but if the SoCons go, the Republican Party fades away. That would not bother me in the least. Look at the numbers in the last election, the Evangelicals provided heavy support to Romney. You are kidding yourself if you think libertarians could make up that difference.
You need to understand something. Abortion is not going to be outlawed in your lifetime. It will require a generational changeover to get the culture to that point. It took the Left 100 years to get our culture to where it is today, it will take at least that long to shift it back. If it makes you feel any better, think of it like the Israelites’ 40 years in the desert.
What you can accomplish is, possibly, a ban on late-term abortions, and ensure that your grandchildren can live in a society where they can effectively argue about abortion. Candidates like Akin and Mourdock are inimical to those goals, they are simply a bridge too far.
I hear what you are saying. This was a debate that I was hoping would be had under a Romney administration. But the conflict was inevitable. I thank Ron Capshaw for bringing it up. There are some core beliefs that will not be sold or suspended for a temporary political gain. Speaking just for me, I see the other side as advocating (quite successfully) for a culture of death. Our society will not long endure under them. So, it is at least somewhat existential and an obligation to future generations.
Do I have the same views as Akin and Mourdock? No. I do respect them but they had as much chance of getting their views into law as Obama has of balancing the budget. On the issues important to you, they could have been the deciding votes. (By the way, Mr. Capshaw, please do not lump that idiot O’Donnell with any thinking person on the right).
The SoCon and the libertarians should have much more in common than what seperates them. If we have limited government we will not have taxpayers paying for abortions. And the SoCons have to respect the principle of freedom. I do not think that drugs use or whatever gets your rocks off is anyone’s business except your own.
Here is a warning to libertarians. I think they are waxing and the SoCons are waning. The SoCons are the new old white males. They never were especially welcome in the Republican Party. After Watergate the Republican Party was the walking dead, sure to be much of nothing for a generation or more. At that time young social conservatives took up their cause and hoped the Republicans would join them . They knocked on doors, raised money, ran candidates and started winning elections. The Rockefeller wing took their votes and made sure to give lip service to their goals. But it has been decades and there has been no progress. Keep in mind, the goal was to overturn a very bad Supreme Court decision. See Mark Levin to discover what bad law it is. This was a power grab by the Supreme Court. This is not the right way to make law. Libertarians should understand that the Republican Party will take your votes and your money but do not expect better treatment than the SoCons got.
I don’t think you do get my point. My point is that you don’t get to choose between a culture of life and a culture of death. The latter is baked into the cake. The only question is if you want to have any influence into the culture at all. If you do you need to shut up about life beginning at conception, at least when running for office. If you don’t you need to stay away for those of us trying to stop this tyrannical juggernaut. You aren’t helping.
Roe v. Wade may be a bad decision, but it is a prime case of answer by accident. The basic idea is wildly popular. You may have started working for the GOP to end abortion, but it simply was never going to happen. Anyone who promised you it would was lying to you as baldly as the Democrats are lying about Obamacare. And maybe the Libertarian goals are equally impossible, but if that’s the case you still win, because in 30 years there won’t be any abortions. The necessary medical system, and the economy that supports it, will simply not be there.
Gee, twice in this thread a libertarian stated a SoCon needed to shut up. Is this how you guys conduct your meetings?
I will state again, there is common ground to be found between SoCons and libertarians. A government greatly reduced in size and limited in power will accomplish many of the goals both sides share.
I’ve never told the SoCons to shut up. I am convinced, however, that they are fighting their battles in the wrong place. A small, Constitutionally limited federal government is not the place to fight these battles.
Fight in the states and preach to citizens without the government involved. Don’t shut up – speak up in the right place.
John Adams pushed to include the abolition of slavery in the Declaration of Independence. He said, “If we give on this, there will be trouble a hundred years hence; posterity will never forgive us.” He was off by a decade and a half, and indeed, posterity has not forgiven their failure to abolish slavery then. I fear the same applies to abortion.
myth buster,
So what?
Outlawing abortion is not going to happen. There is no majority that can be found to support it. It is a political impossibility.
As I have said elsewhere in this thread, you cannot even find a majority to outlaw partial birth abortion.
I am not willing to stand by and watch the collapse of America and with it Western Civilization so we can make your cause front and center. If you are, I do not want you as an ally.
We are headed to a socialist police state at an alarming rate. I think trying to find a majority to prevent that is more important than your religious absolutism on what is a 30% issue at best.
I am reaching the point where I will not support any candidate who wants to talk about restricting abortion at all because they are a guaranteed loser, and there is too much else at stake.
I don’t want the government involved in any of these decisions it SHOULD be left up for the states to decide. I think abortion and gay marriage are all important issues(which I won’t get into now) and I can understand why SoCons have them at the forefront. However what SoCons don’t get is that RIGHT NOW the real issues that are most pressing are; the economy, the economy, the economy, the fact we have a socialist in the White House, foreign policy, and radical Islam. Unfortunately Abortion and Gay Marriage is at the bottom of the list. Now if the other issues were straight, I could easily focusing on that.
I will ask Libertarians though; do you think morally/socially we are getting worse or getting better?
Every candidate for every office should be asked this question: What is one issue you are willing to lose the election over? Anyone who cannot name an issue that he or she would be willing to lose the election over rather than back down from his or her position is too unprincipled for office.
That is crazy. You are demanding zealotry from our candidates. Guys like you like to preen and strut your superior morals and don’t mind losing because you can maintain your fantasy of superiority whatever the outcome. That is what is important to you.
I have no investment in your delusion of moral superiority. I want to save America from the Democrats, and if the Christian Right gets in the way of that, well they are expendable.
Let me say it again, abortion is here to stay. It is politically impossible to change this truth. In a generation of fighting over it not even partial birth abortion has been rolled back. Face the truth here, you lost and unless there is a major change in views of the majority in the center this will remain a losing issue.
I am sick and tired of losing winnable elections because of this issue.
Republicans, listen to the words of these zealots. They don’t mind us losing as long as they get to continue harping on this single issue. We need to kick them out of the party of we will never win again. There is no other way.
Enough is enough.
Maybe I’m crazy but the answer is easy for me.
FREEDOM!
I would be all in for a candidate who’s overriding concern was our freedom and considered everything else secondary.
I agree with the gist of the article that we need to take social issues like abortion out of the political arena. However much you may disagree with it on principle, it is long past time to accept the reality that the country will never go back to the days when abortions were illegal or were difficult to obtain. It is not going to happen. And too many women vote Democrat on this issue alone. It is nonsensical at this stage to keeping losing so many political races, such as the senate races in Missouri and Indiana and possibly even the presidency, on this single issue because of the perceived need to pay lip service to the social conservatives, knowing full well that as far as abortion availability nothing is going to change. Every election cycle the lib media lays out the abortion trap, and every election cycle fools like Akins and Murdoch walk right into it.
You libertarians are delusional on this subject. I don’t mean that social conservatism didn’t cost us many votes — it certainly did. I mean your baseless belief that the American people are any more likely to want what you are selling.
The Obama campaign did not simply run on a pro-life, pro-contraception platform. It also ran, explicitly, an anti-capitalist campaign:
-a campaign which said that “government is the one thing we all belong to”
-that “you didn’t build that [business]“.
-They ran on the need for Government Broadcasting.
-For Federal regulation of salaries in private companies.
-On the “horror” of the rich paying less than 40% tax rates, while the rest of us pay much less.
-On class war against the “1%”.
-On the absolute need for government bailouts of failed businesses.
And the American people voted for all that, too.
Look, I agree with libertarians on about 80-90% of the issues. But the voters do not. They voted for a welfare state.
Face facts, we ALL lost this one.
A lot of talk about the socons costing Romney the election. The numbers I saw say the evangelicals came out heavy for Romney.
On the other hand:
From:
http://www.globalnewsdesk.co.uk/north-america/gary-johnsons-white-house-bid-most-triumphant-in-libertarian-party-history/02464/
Supporters of Gary Johnson have expressed their delight because of his performance, saying that his attainment of more than 1 million votes hurt the Mitt Romney-Paul Ryan White House campaign. Those Americans in favour of a ‘check’ on the Democrat-Republican ‘two party system’, which has characterised American politics for decades, have welcomed Johnson’s creditable showing.
I say again, socons and libertarians have much more to gain by working together than by each trying to exclude the other.