Is the Republican Party morphing into the Libertarian Party?

[tomspug]

The more I see strong viewpoints on lower taxes, smaller government, tea parties, etc. I start to wonder... is this really conservatism? Instead of a battle between ideology (liberalism) and common good (conservatism), it appears to be TWO ideologies that are waging war on each other. One is for the European model and one is for the Reagan model, one for bigger government responsibility, one for less... So if the Republican Party is seeming less and less to be a party of conservatism, which, by definition, should seek unity over revolution, what do we call these Republicans that are acting like rebels?

The more I understand Libertarianism, the more I understand how attractive it must be to a lot of people right now who fear a decrease of liberty. Granted, to accept the ideology, one's beliefs might take a dramatic swing of faith, because currently libertarianism is anything but "conservative". However, in light of an incredibly Democrat government, I expect many people to make that leap. I have been thinking recently that a powerful third-party might be necessary to break this ideological lock of horns we have seen since the early Clinton years...

The Libertarian Party may be that party... better than the Limbaugh Party.

 

[doppelganger]

Nah. The viewpoint on taxes and small government in the Fox News inspired "Tea Parties" is way to incoherent to be called "Libertarian." We're probably just seeing the product of widespread anxiety that's typical when a society is under economic stress. Could it blossom into a third party? That's highly unlikely in this day and age . . . but if it does, it won't be the new "Republican Party."

 

[Green Gaia]

Some are foreseeing a split between fiscal conservatives and social conservatives. Not clear yet who will retain the title of Republican, though. I'd like it to be the fiscal conservatives whom I may not agree with, but can see their point of view. Hopefully the social conservatives' power will fade as true conservatism is brought back.

 

[tomspug]

I think that social conservatism has been mis-labeled by opponents of the religious right. The two terms are not at all equivalent. For example, social conservative Mike Huckabee received a lot of flack for upholding state funding for the education of the children of illegal immigrants... This was not a decision made on a basis of religious faith, but on the faith of the morality inherent in the Constitution, which is VERY much a document of "social conservatism".

 

[Wandered Off]

Is the Republican Party morphing into the Libertarian Party?

I can only hope. Social tolerance combined with fiscal conservatism and avoiding costly international interventionism...

IMO, it would be a sweet turnabout to see the authoritarian social conservatives marched right out the door they used to take over the GOP years ago.

But I'm doubtful. The authoritarians have great grassroots abilities and, by definition, people who are more willing to follow leaders.

 

[Storm]

Instead of a battle between ideology (liberalism) and common good (conservatism), it appears to be TWO ideologies that are waging war on each other.

I'm sorry, but I can't less this pass without comment. Things were NEVER as you describe here. I could just as easily flip it around on you, and it would be just as true. It's always been about competing idologies, and virtually everyone thinks theirs is the one that increases the common good. That's what makes them idologies.

 

[tomspug]

I'm sorry, but I can't less this pass without comment. Things were NEVER as you describe here. I could just as easily flip it around on you, and it would be just as true. It's always been about competing idologies, and virtually everyone thinks theirs is the one that increases the common good. That's what makes them idologies.

Don't get me wrong. There is nothing BAD about ideology. I see the swing between conservatism and liberalism and a healthy and necessary balance to maintain freedom. Liberalism allows us to escape tyranny and conservatism allows us to achieve order, but I think that my brief description of the ROOT of those political movements are accurate.

How would you describe conservatism, if not conservation of established things (common good) and liberalism to ideologically oppose any oppression of individual rights? The "easy flip" you are describing is the result of "neo-conservatism" and "neo-liberalism" which is, essentially a flip.

 

[Storm]

Don't get me wrong. There is nothing BAD about ideology. I see the swing between conservatism and liberalism and a healthy and necessary balance to maintain freedom. Liberalism allows us to escape tyranny and conservatism allows us to achieve order,

Thanks for the clarification. That helps a bit.

but I think that my brief description of the ROOT of those political movements are accurate.

Yet I still disagree.

How would you describe conservatism,

If I may, I'll just edit your description, with my alterations in blue:

conservation of established things (ideology, for the common good) and liberalism to ideologically oppose any oppression of individual rights (for the common good)?

The "easy flip" you are describing is the result of "neo-conservatism" and "neo-liberalism" which is, essentially a flip.

No, it's just that either side can say, with equal justification, "Our ideology promotes the common good. Even neocons try to SAY it, though they're lying through their teeth. I'm not sure what you mean by "neo-liberalism."

Conservatism at its best is the ideology that the common good is best served by the status quo. Liberalism is the ideology that the common good requires reform.

 

[tumbleweed41]

Is Ron Paul becoming the leader of the Libertarian Republicans?

 

[J Bryson]

Is Ron Paul becoming the leader of the Libertarian Republicans?

Not if his anti-choice views get enough play.

 

[McBell]

Instead of a battle between ideology (liberalism) and common good (conservatism),

 

[Ciscokid]

Some are foreseeing a split between fiscal conservatives and social conservatives. Not clear yet who will retain the title of Republican, though. I'd like it to be the fiscal conservatives whom I may not agree with, but can see their point of view. Hopefully the social conservatives' power will fade as true conservatism is brought back.

Hear Hear!

 

[The Voice of Reason]

... Hopefully the social conservatives' power will fade as true conservatism is brought back.

Hopefully, social conservatives will be laughed out of the political arena in their entirety.

Hopefully, at some point in our future, people will stand up to the bigots and self appointed "moral authorities", and tell them what they can do with their piety.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

Instead of a battle between ideology (liberalism) and common good (conservatism),

Mestemia pointed out the "spin factor" on the phrase above.

I would like to say that, for my money, that is about as blatant a case of trying to "frame the debate" and win the point before the conversation even begins.

 

[JMorris]

Hopefully, social conservatives will be laughed out of the political arena in their entirety.

Hopefully, at some point in our future, people will stand up to the bigots and self appointed "moral authorities", and tell them what they can do with their piety.

agreed. but we dont have to worry to much about that, because they will be left behind. social conservatives are an ageing group, eventually they'll mostly be gone.

 

[JMorris]

lets not beat around the bush, what are social conservatives anyway? homophobic/rascist/christian exclusionists who seem to want to set up a theocracy with pat robertson as the leader (or some other droning evangilist)

 

[tomspug]

Mestemia pointed out the "spin factor" on the phrase above.

I would like to say that, for my money, that is about as blatant a case of trying to "frame the debate" and win the point before the conversation even begins.

I would love to know what argument I'm trying to win. Please let me know.

REAL conservatives (as opposed to neo-conservatives) are not ideological. They attempt to conserve that which does not need change, hence "social" conservatives attempt to conserve moral or social principles. It has nothing to do with "ideology" and everything to do with reason. Liberalism, on the other hand, uses ideology as a vehicle for change.

ideological (n) speculative; visionary

The very definition of the word ideological is against the principle of "common good", which is past-oriented. Ideology is future-oriented. People simply attribute undue negativity towards the term "ideology" as if it is a bad thing.

 

[Mathematician]

The Libertarian Party has its problems; namely, not supporting a pro-choice candidate since the 1980s.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

They attempt to conserve that which does not need change, hence "social" conservatives attempt to conserve moral or social principles.

You just can't see it, can you, Tom?

You are attempting to frame the debate by assuming that a given set of moral or social principles (in this instance, yours) are the default, when in fact, that is the very point of the debate.

You are begging the question, by assuming the very point of the debate in the premise of your position. That is how one "frames the debate".

 

[Mathematician]

I would love to know what argument I'm trying to win. Please let me know.

REAL conservatives (as opposed to neo-conservatives) are not ideological. They attempt to conserve that which does not need change, hence "social" conservatives attempt to conserve moral or social principles. It has nothing to do with "ideology" and everything to do with reason. Liberalism, on the other hand, uses ideology as a vehicle for change.

ideological (n) speculative; visionary

The very definition of the word ideological is against the principle of "common good", which is past-oriented. Ideology is future-oriented. People simply attribute undue negativity towards the term "ideology" as if it is a bad thing.

You're using general definitions. Most conservatives do not want to "maintain" or "preserve" the state of affairs. School vouchers, for example, have never been tried before, and in fact they have a wish washy track record in limited case studies, but many conservatives want them.