Why Libertarianism will crush Conservatism

Chris0nllyn

Well-Known Member
Through the decades, conservatives have been overwhelmingly impotent at preserving their ever-shifting vision of tradition. They have over the last century lost their battles against Wilsonian progressivism, the New Deal, the Great Society, racial integration, abortion, drug abuse, and secularization, and they are now losing their fights against gay rights and so-called illegal immigration. The fact that they have lost so reliably, despite their persistent numerical superiority, is a testament to the holes in their philosophy. Along the way, they've adopted virtually every bureaucratic idea pioneered by progressives, increasing government spending while wasting energy and billions of dollars fighting losing cultural battles.

The diminishing appeal of conservatism for younger, more cosmopolitan millennials as well as exploding immigrant populations who view it as bigoted or old-fashioned translates to serious demographic problems for Republicans. If current trends continue, winning the White House will become a distant memory for the GOP. Absent a commitment to change (something they don't generally excel at), the party may cease to be competitive at the national level.

Libertarianism can perhaps be thought of as a natural response to this contradiction. Libertarians are skeptical of power in an age of skepticism, embrace science in an era of rapid scientific improvement, reject banal expressions of nationalism in an increasingly-globalized world, and remain dedicated to individualism, not for tradition's sake, but to advance mankind's virtually limitless potential.

The growth of libertarianism in the GOP is very much the result of the millennial generation's coming of age. Millennials seem to have a different view of what conservatism is than their parents and grandparents. It's well known that they are much more socially liberal than previous generations. They are, however, still split on the role of government, with millennials today slightly more conservative than Generation X was at the same age.

Libertarianism is the true yin to progressivism's yang: a platform consistently emphasizing individual rights and self-determination can more effectively combat the global march toward collectivism and consolidation without conservatism's archaic cultural baggage.

The differences between libertarianism and progressivism are scientific, rather than sentimental, so the battle can be fought on scientific grounds consistent with the values of today's youth. Having a firm philosophical foundation, libertarian congressmen such as Justin Amash and Tom Massie have demonstrated an immunity to the customary weaknesses that have drawn the GOP away from its small-government ideals.

Conservatives don't have much to lose by embracing libertarianism. Whether they like it or not, their reactionary philosophy has led them to defeat in both the culture wars and the quest for limited government. Sometimes, change is good.

Why Libertarianism Will Crush Conservatism

Well written article with some good points, but in reality, Republicans (and Democrats) don't want a Libertarian wing. Those parties are selling you access to their party while the Libertarian party is based on principle.

Truth is, Libertarians will never be able to sustain a constant Libertarian approach in either party. How on earth could someone like Ron Paul or Gary Johnson be on the same "team" as Chris Christie, or Rick Santorum without having their message diluted?

Libertarians are consistent, principled, and not selling themselves to the highest bidder.
 

Larry Gude

Strung Out
Can we at least try conservatism before we give it up?

Reagan was moderately conservative. Bush 41, profoundly less so. Bush 43 should go down in history as one of the great Democratic presidents of all time.

Can we at least try limited government? One term?
 

Larry Gude

Strung Out
That question should be answered by all the nay-sayers who believe that re-electing the same parties that have gotten us into this mess will somehow work out.....one day.

We have already established that most of us who self describe as 'conservatives' are nothing of the sort. I'm arguing in favor of at least trying it seeings how it's being blamed for so many things it had nothing to do with.
 

Railroad

Routinely Derailed
As an Independent, I harbor equal malice toward all political parties and most politicians. They're ALL wrong. :burning: Fire 'em all and bar them from holding any public office of any kind. Replace them with people who don't like leaving their real jobs to go do politics.
 

PsyOps

Pixelated
Conservatism will never win because of the population’s insatiable appetite for free stuff. Not until other peoples’ money completely dries out and the government is forced to cut the leeches off will folks understand. It’s just that simple.
 

Larry Gude

Strung Out
As an Independent, I harbor equal malice toward all political parties and most politicians. They're ALL wrong. :burning: Fire 'em all and bar them from holding any public office of any kind. Replace them with people who don't like leaving their real jobs to go do politics.

And how to spread that gospel???

I mean, most of us are for term limits. Most of us think our parties are not acting in the national, but only self, interest. Most of us think the US is in decline and that includes people on the other side, especially black folks, confronting the reality that the last 5 years have seen their lives decline along with the rest of us. They ARE us. We ARE them.

The trick is to find a way to avoid falling into the D v. R trap where, suddenly, our wart covered, self serving asshat who is running the nation into the ground all of a sudden is this gorgeous swan, with only our best interests at heart when he or she is compared to the OTHER guys. We are at the point where we KNOW it is one turd and we KNOW we're trying to argue it can be picked up by the clean end but we CAN'T help ourselves.

It is NOT them. It is we, the people.

My god, I was just reading how the Fed owns 4 times the public debt it did back in '08, from $500 bil to $2 trillion, not to mention another $1.3 trillion in mortgages!!! All this in some sort of desperate attempt to solve the crisis of 1929. That is about 20% of GDP, to over simplify, simply made up. Economic activity we are pretending happened in an effort to get the economy going again. An economy where we, the people, don't have money to spend because we have so much of our own debt, piled on by this new debt strangling activity and, in the mean time, basics like food and energy suck up everything else AND health care grows, incessantly and uninterpreted, well past 6% of GPD with the entitlement bubble just now getting its groove on!!!

None of this makes sense from a general welfare standpoint and it isn't working. If you were rich, you're probably richer. If you're poor, you have more company but, the middle class is shrinking. We're focusing on both ends, the exact opposite of what needs to be; a healthy, thriving, growing middle class.

Then, we listen to the president. We listen to what little opposition there is that isn't some radio jock. And, what do we hear, where are we being lead that makes ANY sense?
 

Larry Gude

Strung Out
Conservatism will never win because of the population’s insatiable appetite for free stuff. Not until other peoples’ money completely dries out and the government is forced to cut the leeches off will folks understand. It’s just that simple.

Explain to me how, in January of 2001, with a GOP potus who ran a very conservative sounding campaign (I'm serious, listen to the Bush/Gore debates and you'll feel like Reagan was a socialist, foreign policy, very much the economy), with a party House and a party Senate and plenty of state houses on his side AND a favorable court, a man who WON on a very small government platform, not 'more!' how does that have ANYTHING to do with insatiable appetite when the guy WON on small government grounds?

How did we freaking get here when, when we voted for it, R's across the board, what happened???
 

PsyOps

Pixelated
Explain to me how, in January of 2001, with a GOP potus who ran a very conservative sounding campaign (I'm serious, listen to the Bush/Gore debates and you'll feel like Reagan was a socialist, foreign policy, very much the economy), with a party House and a party Senate and plenty of state houses on his side AND a favorable court, a man who WON on a very small government platform, not 'more!' how does that have ANYTHING to do with insatiable appetite when the guy WON on small government grounds?

How did we freaking get here when, when we voted for it, R's across the board, what happened???

What happened was liberalism. You – yourself – admit that Bush lied and is really a liberal. Seems people loved it; and still do. Then they followed that up with voting for THE MOST liberal person in congress, with absolutely no experience, and wasn’t ashamed to hide it.

So, explain to me how 6 years after Bush was elected the country overwhelmingly gave power back to the democrats, and since then entitlements have exploded, and we got Obamacare, Obama phones, almost $17 trillion in debt, and the reelection of Obama and democrats maintaining power in the senate and increasing seats in house, and still more and more increases in entitlements?

Explain to me how, prior to the GOP taking full control of congress in ’96 democrats controlled congress for 40 years? 40 YEARS! And here we are, gone full circle; only worse.

This is not an attempt to exonerate Bush and you know it. Bush is all part of the equation. It seems the people gave 'conservatism' and try and didn't like it; because it required people take responsibility for themselves, and had to actually work for their own. We’ve proven over and over and you cannot compete with free stuff.
 
Last edited:

Larry Gude

Strung Out
So, explain to me how 6 years after Bush was elected the country overwhelmingly gave power back to the democrats, and since then entitlements have exploded, and we got Obamacare, Obama phones, almost $17 trillion in debt, and the reelection of Obama and democrats maintaining power in the senate and increasing seats in house, and still more and more increases in entitlements? .

To me, that one is simple; voters in the middle, the folks who decide these things, saw that 'conservative' policies didn't work. Even had they said "Hey! This guy wasn't conservative!" that still left them with the results of what people CLAIMING to be conservative would do thus, not only did we NOT get conservative policies but, conservatism is discredited to boot. So, McCain come along and "Why not try the new guy? We KNOW what the guys claiming to be for less government will do. Maybe, they acted earnestly (shudder) and it simply isn't a good governing philosophy, so, maybe these Keynesian guys have it right?"
 

Larry Gude

Strung Out
It seems the people gave 'conservatism' and try and didn't like it; because it required people take responsibility for themselves, and had to actually work for their own. We’ve proven over and over and you cannot compete with free stuff.

But, again, Bush won promising LESS and then spent like a drunken Dem. He started handing out dough right away, on tax day. Followed that with Med D. And No Child, spend, spend. I don't see Bush as being rejected for being conservative, at all. But I DO see conservatism taking the blame. Bush could have perused conservative policies had he chosen to because THAT is the grounds on which he won.

Agreed?
 

PsyOps

Pixelated
Is that it, he lied? Even if so, he still won promising less government. Right?

Did he really promise less government? Maybe in his first run, but not his second. Everything was WAR, WAR, WAR in his second run. The last thing he or anyone was talking about or even concerned about was fiscal responsibility and the economy.

But you didn’t answer my question… if his sales pitch on conservatism was what won voters over, how do you explain the democrats taking control of congress in ’07? The bubble hadn’t really burst yet; the economy was doing really well. Then democrats took control and the economy collapsed. Then, when things didn’t get better, they voted for Obama and even more liberals, more entitlements, more spending, more debt… And things still didn’t get better and voters kept the status quo: more entitlements, more spending, more debt…

If conservatism is the answer – or if even libertarianism is the answer – why are liberals running the show and own the narrative? I think Americans have gotten a good taste for what it’s like to live off other peoples’ money, and it tastes good. Rush was talking about this some on his radio show today…

Employment has not gotten to where folks are overwhelmingly working part time at minimum wage. It’s more beneficial for them to collect welfare or SSD. Why work your @$$ off only to struggle to get by when you can get just as much - or more - FREE money and struggle to get by?
 

PsyOps

Pixelated
To me, that one is simple; voters in the middle, the folks who decide these things, saw that 'conservative' policies didn't work. Even had they said "Hey! This guy wasn't conservative!" that still left them with the results of what people CLAIMING to be conservative would do thus, not only did we NOT get conservative policies but, conservatism is discredited to boot. So, McCain come along and "Why not try the new guy? We KNOW what the guys claiming to be for less government will do. Maybe, they acted earnestly (shudder) and it simply isn't a good governing philosophy, so, maybe these Keynesian guys have it right?"

So, the people THOUGHT they were getting something conservative, but really wasn’t, so we got McCain – even more LES Conservative. But rather than go for him, less go full balls-to-the-wall liberal with Obama and a very liberal democrat congress. And when we got Obamacare - the epitome of socialism in America - let's vote for more of it again.

Makes sense to me :shrug:
 

PsyOps

Pixelated
But, again, Bush won promising LESS and then spent like a drunken Dem. He started handing out dough right away, on tax day. Followed that with Med D. And No Child, spend, spend. I don't see Bush as being rejected for being conservative, at all. But I DO see conservatism taking the blame. Bush could have perused conservative policies had he chosen to because THAT is the grounds on which he won.

Agreed?

So, Bush promised less, but spent more, and you’re saying the people didn’t see this? Are you saying they only saw/heard Bush talking and paid no attention to what he was doing?

So, either the voters were immensely stupid, or they liked what they saw and ignored what they heard. Then when Bush’s spending failed, voters voted for MORE OF IT. Are you even seeing the logic in this?

It doesn’t much matter what Bush said he was going to do, it’s what he did and how people responded to that. I’m trying to imagine what would have happened if Bush had actually gone truly conservative. Would the people, with their insatiable appetite for free money, simple disappear? Or would have never had been given birth to. I happen to think those seeds were planted back in the 30s and grew from one generation to the next. Bush did what he thought the people wanted. And they feasted on it, and continue to.
 

PsyOps

Pixelated
Another question: If libertarianism and/or conservatism are the answer, why is it so much effort is required convincing people of it? Why is so little effort required to convince people to accept liberalism?
 

PsyOps

Pixelated
A question for Chris: How is libertarianism so different from conservatism that it could or even should 'crush' conservatism?
 

Chris0nllyn

Well-Known Member
Another question: If libertarianism and/or conservatism are the answer, why is it so much effort is required convincing people of it? Why is so little effort required to convince people to accept liberalism?

The bigger question is why the 2 main parties are putting so much effort into not allowing 3rd parties to get on the ballot or at debates.

It's hard convincing people of something they hardly know about.

A question for Chris: How is libertarianism so different from conservatism that it could or even should 'crush' conservatism?

I believe the author is equating Conservatism with being a Republican. I believe most, if not all, Libertarians are fiscally conservative, but socially liberal.
 

FreedomFan

Snarky 'ol Cuss
It's important to draw a distinction between "libertarians" and "Libertarians". The latter implies the formal political party formed in the 1970s. Ostensibly, they embrace 'libertarianism' but alas they are a political party, and have donors to satisfy, etc. As such there will always be compromise, and there will always be infighting and circle jerking.

As contrasted with "Libertarianism", "libertarianism" is little more than a frame work for problem solving that is directly descended from classical liberalism.

True libertarianism will never take foot in our country, as true libertarians don't want to rule anyone, and generally believe in voluntary association, which is generally incompatible with our society.

Modern conservatives and liberals alike love the welfare state and love free government sh!t. The two party tyranny ain't going no where. We're stuck with it. Sorry.
 

PsyOps

Pixelated
I believe most, if not all, Libertarians are fiscally conservative, but socially liberal.

That makes me curious about something. I always thought of libertarians – from a social standpoint – to be more of liberties-oriented philosophy; in other words people should be allow to do, pretty much, whatever they want to do as long as they aren’t hurting anyone. Not that they necessarily agree with any particular thing, but they have no desire to interfere.

In other words… I am a social conservative, but libertarian in social issues. What that means is: I disagree with smoking pot, but I think it should be legal and if you want to smoke it, it’s really none of my business. I am against abortion, but am more against banning it. I believe individual responsibility should rule, not making these things illegal. Because I disagree with these things (perhaps on moral grounds) doesn’t mean I think it’s my place (or the government’s place) to forbid people from doing stupid things to themselves. Of course abortion is one of those areas where I do believe a human is being harmed, and I will probably be forever conflicted about that.

My point is, I always thought libertarians felt this way because their morals compelled them to; that harming yourself with chemicals or abortion is morally wrong, but it’s really not our business to interfere. I always thought of libertarians as having a certain moral compass that doesn’t exist with liberals.
 
Top