PDA

View Full Version : To Win Millennials, the GOP Needs to Embrace Its Inner Libertarian



KC
06-05-2013, 12:21 PM
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/06/04/to-win-millenials-the-gop-needs-to-embrace-its-inner-libertarian.html


While Michele Bachmann’s decision not to run for a fifth term helps the party out on that score, a new report from the College Republican National Committee (http://www.crnc.org/home/) (CRNC) strongly suggests that another tack would be even more successful: The GOP should embrace its small, youthful, and increasingly influential libertarian caucus that focuses on cutting government spending—even or especially on old-age entitlements—and quit fretting over gay marriage or the need to invade and occupy foreign countries.


Millennials, says the report, don’t care much about abstractions such as that favorite Republican bogeyman, “big government.” But they are into cutting government spending and reducing the national debt, as they realize both things are strangling their future before it begins. Fully 90 percent agree that Social Security and Medicare need to be reformed now, 82 percent are ready to “make tough choices about cutting government spending, even on some programs some people really like,” and 72 percent want to cut the size of government “because it is simply too big.” Only 17 percent want to increase spending on defense and just 30 percent said that “marriage should be legally defined as only between a man and a women,” with 44 percent saying same-sex marriage should be legal everywhere and 26 percent saying it should be up to individual states.


I generally agree with this thesis, but with one caveat: the GOP ought to adopt more libertarian like policies, but its long run success with Millenials won't be the result of a Goldwater-esque "extremism in the defense of liberty", not anarcho-capitalism, but rather right leaning economic policies (such as fiscal conservatism and opposition to central planning) along with a states' rights view of social issues like gay marriage or drug policy.

Adelaide
06-05-2013, 12:26 PM
I heard as well that the GOP needs to focus more on technology to reach out to young voters.

It makes sense that Millennials appreciate the libertarian point of view; it seems like many are either very liberal or very libertarian and do not view the GOP positively due to it's stance on social issues and the fact that the GOP seems to want big government as much as the Dems, except in different departments. A more libertarian approach would/should definitely appeal to younger voters.

KC
06-05-2013, 12:29 PM
I heard as well that the GOP needs to focus more on technology to reach out to young voters.

It makes sense that Millennials appreciate the libertarian point of view; it seems like many are either very liberal or very libertarian and do not view the GOP positively due to it's stance on social issues and the fact that the GOP seems to want big government as much as the Dems, except in different departments. A more libertarian approach would/should definitely appeal to younger voters.

Nationally of course, President Obama has been a master of using the internet and social media to it's fullest advantage, and Republicans will have to learn to get the most out of that technology as well (in my mind the gap is no longer as large as it was in 2008, however). But right, it doesn't matter how well you advertise, if most Millenials don't agree with traditional GOP stances on social issues, they are unlikely to embrace the GOP.

Adelaide
06-05-2013, 12:34 PM
Nationally of course, President Obama has been a master of using the internet and social media to it's fullest advantage, and Republicans will have to learn to get the most out of that technology as well (in my mind the gap is no longer as large as it was in 2008, however). But right, it doesn't matter how well you advertise, if most Millenials don't agree with traditional GOP stances on social issues, they are unlikely to embrace the GOP.

How likely do you think it is that the GOP will pull back on their conservative social views?

That seems to be a big difference between US conservatives and Canadian conservatives - our Conservative party is doing really well largely because it entirely ignores majority of social issues and focuses on the economy, where many Canadians agree with their policies and their handling of the financial crisis. Focusing on social issues would be very problematic and detrimental to their success.

Chris
06-05-2013, 12:35 PM
Both Goldwater and Ron Paul attracted a lot of young voters to libertarian conservatism. Neither were anarchists in their quest for smaller, more fiscally responsible, less interventionist government.

KC
06-05-2013, 12:38 PM
Both Goldwater and Ron Paul attracted a lot of young voters to libertarian conservatism. Neither were anarchists in their quest for smaller, more fiscally responsible, less interventionist government.

True, they weren't, but what I mean to say is that the GOP will do better by adopting libertarian policies, but for their practical success they can't take this too far to the realm of anarcho-capitalism or a more pure classical liberal stance.

KC
06-05-2013, 12:42 PM
How likely do you think it is that the GOP will pull back on their conservative social views?

That seems to be a big difference between US conservatives and Canadian conservatives - our Conservative party is doing really well largely because it entirely ignores majority of social issues and focuses on the economy, where many Canadians agree with their policies and their handling of the financial crisis. Focusing on social issues would be very problematic and detrimental to their success.

I'm confident that in my lifetime the GOP will change it's stance on social issues. As a transitional measure I would advise they first take a hard line states' rights stance, then state Republican parties can gradually adopt more liberal/libertarian stances, based on local culture (pro-gay marriage on the East coast would be smart, but they should wait it out in states like Mississippi). Eventually, of course, I would expect the national platform to either ignore social issues, like the Canadian Conservatives, or take a more libertarian stance.

Ravi
06-05-2013, 12:43 PM
Yes, that's the ticket. It helped them out so much in the last two elections.

KC
06-05-2013, 12:44 PM
Yes, that's the ticket. It helped them out so much in the last two elections.

By and large it hasn't been tried. There have been a few; Ron and Rand Paul, for example, but Romney and McCain both took on traditional GOP stances on social issues.

Mister D
06-05-2013, 12:44 PM
Yes, that's the ticket. It helped them out so much in the last two elections.

The GOP embraced their inner libertarian for the last two elections?

Mister D
06-05-2013, 12:45 PM
By and large it hasn't been tried. There have been a few; Ron and Rand Paul, for example, but Romney and McCain both took on traditional GOP stances on social issues.

I'll go further. The GOP establishment was actually pretty hostile to Ron Paul.

Chris
06-05-2013, 12:47 PM
True, they weren't, but what I mean to say is that the GOP will do better by adopting libertarian policies, but for their practical success they can't take this too far to the realm of anarcho-capitalism or a more pure classical liberal stance.

Agree. Small steps. :-)

KC
06-05-2013, 12:58 PM
I'll go further. The GOP establishment was actually pretty hostile to Ron Paul.

Very true, all while Ron Paul was doing fantastic in the Primaries and straw polls, largely because of millenials. I have one friend who goes to school in Illinois who told me he couldn't believe he was registering as a Republican, but for him it worth it for a chance to support Paul in the Primary.

Ravi
06-05-2013, 12:58 PM
By and large it hasn't been tried. There have been a few; Ron and Rand Paul, for example, but Romney and McCain both took on traditional GOP stances on social issues. You slept through the teepeas?

Mister D
06-05-2013, 01:01 PM
Very true, all while Ron Paul was doing fantastic in the Primaries and straw polls, largely because of millenials. I have one friend who goes to school in Illinois who told me he couldn't believe he was registering as a Republican, but for him it worth it for a chance to support Paul in the Primary.

The only people who seemed excited about anything in my area were the Paulistas. I'd see Ron Paul signs and placards. Not much for anyone else.

KC
06-05-2013, 01:04 PM
You slept through the teepeas?

No I remember the last two elections quite vividly, but I'm afraid you may have been daydreaming...

Ravi
06-05-2013, 01:07 PM
No I remember the last two elections quite vividly, but I'm afraid you may have been daydreaming... Excellent. I hope you all can top Hermain Cain. That guy was comedy gold.

nic34
06-05-2013, 01:09 PM
quit fretting over gay marriage or the need to invade and occupy foreign countries.

That would be a start... and quit with the no exceptions for abortion and tying the debate to contraception.....

But we all know the Gopers can't help themselves....

KC
06-05-2013, 01:12 PM
Excellent. I hope you all can top Hermain Cain. That guy was comedy gold.

I don't know who "you all" is referring to, but I would hope the GOP can find better candidates too. This is, after all the point of this thread. How can the GOP improve its prospects with young voters? Social issues are important to young and the GOP is on the wrong side of them.

Peter1469
06-05-2013, 01:36 PM
I'm confident that in my lifetime the GOP will change it's stance on social issues. As a transitional measure I would advise they first take a hard line states' rights stance, then state Republican parties can gradually adopt more liberal/libertarian stances, based on local culture (pro-gay marriage on the East coast would be smart, but they should wait it out in states like Mississippi). Eventually, of course, I would expect the national platform to either ignore social issues, like the Canadian Conservatives, or take a more libertarian stance.

The social issues should be handled at the state level.

Mister D
06-05-2013, 01:39 PM
The social issues should be handled at the state level.

Right. And those who champion our lost traditions will probably be more successful.

KC
06-05-2013, 01:39 PM
The social issues should be handled at the state level.
Yes, they should. Not only is that the Constitutional thing to do, but it is the best area for compromise among libertarian millennials and old school conservatives.

Peter1469
06-05-2013, 01:40 PM
Yes, that's the ticket. It helped them out so much in the last two elections.

In the last election cycle many Tea Party(ies) where hampered by the IRS.... Lots of libertarians that may have come out for the GOP, if the case was made, stayed home or voted 3rd party.

jillian
06-05-2013, 01:41 PM
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/06/04/to-win-millenials-the-gop-needs-to-embrace-its-inner-libertarian.html






I generally agree with this thesis, but with one caveat: the GOP ought to adopt more libertarian like policies, but its long run success with Millenials won't be the result of a Goldwater-esque "extremism in the defense of liberty", not anarcho-capitalism, but rather right leaning economic policies (such as fiscal conservatism and opposition to central planning) along with a states' rights view of social issues like gay marriage or drug policy.

And yet, in modern history, we've gone into recession when so-called fiscal conservatives run things.

If they want millennials, they need to stop trying to legislate on behalf of the religious right. The article is right about that.

TheDictator
06-05-2013, 01:42 PM
If the Republican Party turns away fron it's traditional stance on social issues it will lose 40 to 45% of it's base. America is not Canada, America has a much larger religious base than that of Canada. Also Canada does have the kind of racial diversity that the U.S. has. America also does not have the same kind of political system that allows small political parties to win some seats. The Republican Party came to power because of social issues not being represented in the Democrat or Whig Party. The reason the Whig Party died was that they ignored the social issues of the day, and the Republican Party was born.

Peter1469
06-05-2013, 01:43 PM
Right. And those who champion our lost traditions will probably be more successful.

Sure where there are large numbers of them.

Mister D
06-05-2013, 01:44 PM
Sure where there are large numbers of them.

I think regionalism is a major factor in many of these issues.

KC
06-05-2013, 01:45 PM
And yet, in modern history, we've gone into recession when so-called fiscal conservatives run things.

If they want millennials, they need to stop trying to legislate on behalf of the religious right. The article is right about that.

When has there been a fiscal conservative running things in recent times?

Peter1469
06-05-2013, 01:45 PM
If the Republican Party turns away fron it's traditional stance on social issues it will lose 40 to 45% of it's base. America is not Canada, America has a much larger religious base than that of Canada. Also Canada does have the kind of racial diversity that the U.S. has. America also does not have the same kind of political system that allows small political parties to win some seats. The Republican Party came to power because of social issues not being represented in the Democrat or Whig Party. The reason the Whig Party died was that they ignored the social issues of the day, and the Republican Party was born.

If the social issues were pushed down to the state level, would the religious right be satisfied? Or would they just not vote in federal elections?

Peter1469
06-05-2013, 01:45 PM
I think regionalism is a major factor in many of these issues.

I agree.

KC
06-05-2013, 01:51 PM
If the Republican Party turns away fron it's traditional stance on social issues it will lose 40 to 45% of it's base. America is not Canada, America has a much larger religious base than that of Canada. Also Canada does have the kind of racial diversity that the U.S. has. America also does not have the same kind of political system that allows small political parties to win some seats. The Republican Party came to power because of social issues not being represented in the Democrat or Whig Party. The reason the Whig Party died was that they ignored the social issues of the day, and the Republican Party was born.

Not sure how relevant the historical role of the GOP is in this. Why? Because by and large, the conservatives of tomorrow are not going to be much like the conservatives of today. They may be religious, sure, but they aren't social conservatives, or at least don't think the government should keep same sex couples from marrying, or other social changes from emerging.

jillian
06-05-2013, 01:52 PM
In the last election cycle many Tea Party(ies) where hampered by the IRS.... Lots of libertarians that may have come out for the GOP, if the case was made, stayed home or voted 3rd party.

How were they hampered. None of them stopped collecting money. And the law prohibits 501(c)4 corporations from engaging in political activity.

So what hampered them, again?

could it be the law?

Ravi
06-05-2013, 01:56 PM
In the last election cycle many Tea Party(ies) where hampered by the IRS.... Lots of libertarians that may have come out for the GOP, if the case was made, stayed home or voted 3rd party. Ah, of course. A built in excuse. I like it.

Chris
06-05-2013, 02:02 PM
That would be a start... and quit with the no exceptions for abortion and tying the debate to contraception.....

But we all know the Gopers can't help themselves....

Uh, nic, we're talking about the libertarian element, not gopers.

jillian
06-05-2013, 02:04 PM
Ah, of course. A built in excuse. I like it.

If they engaged in political activity, they'd be acting illegally and SHOULD be hampered.

Which is why the idea that they were somehow obstructed is such a joke

Chris
06-05-2013, 02:06 PM
How were they hampered. None of them stopped collecting money. And the law prohibits 501(c)4 corporations from engaging in political activity.

So what hampered them, again?

could it be the law?

By requests for information. Don't you know the story?



law prohibits 501(c)4 corporations from engaging in political activity

State the exact law, jillian.

Chris
06-05-2013, 02:06 PM
If they engaged in political activity, they'd be acting illegally and SHOULD be hampered.

Which is why the idea that they were somehow obstructed is such a joke



State the law precisely, jillian, not these vague, imprecise claims of yours.

jillian
06-05-2013, 02:11 PM
State the law precisely, jillian, not these vague, imprecise claims of yours.

so spaketh the person who thinks law exists in the air.

The statute was enacted. You'd say it doesn't exist anyway.

So don't worry your little head about it.

Chris
06-05-2013, 02:15 PM
so spaketh the person who thinks law exists in the air.

The statute was enacted. You'd say it doesn't exist anyway.

So don't worry your little head about it.

So instead of citing the law you claim to know you make things up to attack me with ad hom.

I have to assume your blowing smoke and don't know the law.

nic34
06-05-2013, 02:18 PM
Uh, nic, we're talking about the libertarian element, not gopers.

uh, chris the title of the thread is:

To Win Millennials, the GOP Needs to Embrace Its Inner Libertarian

Peter1469
06-05-2013, 02:18 PM
How were they hampered. None of them stopped collecting money. And the law prohibits 501(c)4 corporations from engaging in political activity.

So what hampered them, again?

could it be the law?


There were hearings on that topic on the Hill yesterday.

Chris
06-05-2013, 02:19 PM
uh, chris the title of the thread is:

To Win Millennials, the GOP Needs to Embrace Its Inner Libertarian

I've emphasized what you seemed to have missed.

Ravi
06-05-2013, 02:19 PM
Maybe only Libertarians need to embrace their inner Libertarian. LMAO

nic34
06-05-2013, 02:20 PM
chris:

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-tege/eotopicm95.pdf

Chris
06-05-2013, 02:22 PM
Maybe only Libertarians need to embrace their inner Libertarian. LMAO

It's lower case libertarian.

What do you mean?

Chris
06-05-2013, 02:24 PM
chris:

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-tege/eotopicm95.pdf

Vague gesture, thanks, but where do I find jillian's claim "And the law prohibits 501(c)4 corporations from engaging in political activity"?

jillian
06-05-2013, 02:35 PM
Vague gesture, thanks, but where do I find jillian's claim "And the law prohibits 501(c)4 corporations from engaging in political activity"?

there isn't anything vague about that, chris.

is your google finger broken?

Chris
06-05-2013, 02:38 PM
there isn't anything vague about that, chris.

is your google finger broken?

A link to a pdf file. Point out where in that file it says specifically what you claim: "And the law prohibits 501(c)4 corporations from engaging in political activity".

So far you have responded twice without substantiating your claim. Three strikes and yer out.

jillian
06-05-2013, 02:46 PM
A link to a pdf file. Point out where in that file it says specifically what you claim: "And the law prohibits 501(c)4 corporations from engaging in political activity".

So far you have responded twice without substantiating your claim. Three strikes and yer out.

you know the designation 501(c)(4) is a statutory designation, right? it shouldn't have been that difficult for you to look up. and i don't work for you.

however, i do feel sorry for you and was curious about how long you would continue to embarrass yourself...so i'll have rachmanes on you (you can google that, too)

now read carefully, chris, because this is real, statutory law, not law in the air....


26 USC § 501 - Exemption from tax on corporations, certain trusts, etc.
a) Exemption from taxation An organization described in subsection (c) or (d) orsection 401 (http://thepoliticalforums.com/uscode/text/26/401) (a) (http://thepoliticalforums.com/uscode/text/26/usc_sec_26_00000401----000-#a) shall be exempt from taxation under this subtitle unless such exemption is denied under section 502 (http://thepoliticalforums.com/uscode/text/26/502) or 503 (http://thepoliticalforums.com/uscode/text/26/503)

<snip>

4)
(A) Civic leagues or organizations not organized for profit but operated exclusively for the promotion of social welfare, or local associations of employees, the membership of which is limited to the employees of a designated person or persons in a particular municipality, and the net earnings of which are devoted exclusively to charitable, educational, or recreational purposes.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/501

i think it's kind of sad that you'd stamp your feet and demand proof of something that is general knowledge.... and which has been in the news for the past week.

btw, just because you say my response was "vague" doesn't mean it was. it was rather specific. but good job trolling. congrats.

Ravi
06-05-2013, 02:49 PM
How were they hampered. None of them stopped collecting money. And the law prohibits 501(c)4 corporations from engaging in political activity. So what hampered them, again? could it be the law? apparently they were hampered from doing charitable works or something, lol. "I couldn't get tax funding so I had to stop doing charity work." You just can't make this stuff up.

jillian
06-05-2013, 02:53 PM
apparently they were hampered from doing charitable works or something, lol. "I couldn't get tax funding so I had to stop doing charity work." You just can't make this stuff up.

it is pretty funny.

the more i watch the fauxrage over this, the more i realize it was a manufactured crisis.

and the less sympathy i have for people who's intent was clearly to break the law.

Chris
06-05-2013, 02:55 PM
you know the designation 501(c)(4) is a statutory designation, right? it shouldn't have been that difficult for you to look up. and i don't work for you.

however, i do feel sorry for you and was curious about how long you would continue to embarrass yourself...so i'll have rachmanes on you (you can google that, too)

now read carefully, chris, because this is real, statutory law, not law in the air....

[h=1]

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/501

[/B]i think it's kind of sad that you'd stamp your feet and demand proof of something that is general knowledge.... and which has been in the news for the past week.

btw, just because you say my response was "vague" doesn't mean it was. it was rather specific. but good job trolling. congrats.

Nice bluff, jillian. And nice attempt to project your emotions onto me.

Now where does it say what you claimed: And the law prohibits 501(c)4 corporations from engaging in political activity"? --Well consider that just a foul ball. Still two strikes.



And where did i say your response was vague? Making things up again, jillian? Nic supplied a link, I said that was a vague gesture. Try reading closer.

Chris
06-05-2013, 02:58 PM
apparently they were hampered from doing charitable works or something, lol. "I couldn't get tax funding so I had to stop doing charity work." You just can't make this stuff up.

That is correct. Responding to IRS demands for information wasted much time and effort. Are you really that unfamiliar with the facts here? Are you just making them up and then being sarcastic about what you make up? Kind of vacuous that.

jillian
06-05-2013, 02:58 PM
Nice bluff, jillian. And nice attempt to project your emotions onto me.

Now where does it say what you claimed: And the law prohibits 501(c)4 corporations from engaging in political activity"?



And where did i say your response was vague? Making things up again, jillian? Nic supplied a link, I said that was a vague gesture. Try reading closer.

i'm sorry you can't read a statute chris.

but i'm done helping you. perhaps someone who isn't laughing at you will.

and get your emotions in check. you seem to be bordering on hysteria.

Chris
06-05-2013, 03:00 PM
i'm sorry you can't read a statute chris.

but i'm done helping you. perhaps someone who isn't laughing at you will.

and get your emotions in check. you seem to be bordering on hysteria.

Strike three.

My emotions, nice made up ad hom to cover for your failure to substantiate yet another claim.

jillian
06-05-2013, 03:02 PM
Strike three.

My emotions, nice made up ad hom to cover for your failure to substantiate yet another claim.

you know, chris, normal people can read the statute and what it says.

nice trolling though.

does it bother you when conversations occur on the board?

or are you only happy when you troll people who make you look silly?

dismissed.

Chris
06-05-2013, 03:13 PM
you know, chris, normal people can read the statute and what it says.

nice trolling though.

does it bother you when conversations occur on the board?

or are you only happy when you troll people who make you look silly?

dismissed.

I read the document, jillian, it does not say what you claimed. You claimed "And the law prohibits 501(c)4 corporations from engaging in political activity". But it simply doesn't say that. You made a false claim.

And now you once more make false claims about me to cover up that false claim. Stop blowing smoke, jillian.

But then again it is your reputation.

jillian
06-05-2013, 03:18 PM
By and large it hasn't been tried. There have been a few; Ron and Rand Paul, for example, but Romney and McCain both took on traditional GOP stances on social issues.

how do rand and ronnie differ from mittens and mccain on social issues right now? they're all anti-choice. they're all pro personhood laws.....

what's different?

Chris
06-05-2013, 03:27 PM
how do rand and ronnie differ from mittens and mccain on social issues right now? they're all anti-choice. they're all pro personhood laws.....

what's different?

Why do you always assume being pro-life implies being anti-choice? It's not a correct assumption to project onto others.

KC
06-05-2013, 03:51 PM
how do rand and ronnie differ from mittens and mccain on social issues right now? they're all anti-choice. they're all pro personhood laws.....

what's different?

To hear you tell it abortion is the only cultural political issue. It is not.

Chris
06-05-2013, 03:52 PM
Let's try and get this topic back on track after the above attempt to sidetrack it. An interesting write up on how the libertarian right might make a difference:


I recommend reading Peter Suderman’s entire post on the relationship between libertarianism and what I’ve been calling “reform conservatism,” but the ending, especially, is very perceptive about the state of play on the American right today:


¶… part of the reason why conservative reformers of various stripes have gotten so much attention recently—eventually, something will have to fill the [current Republican policy] void. The agenda Douthat outlines is perhaps one possibility, and simply because it’s a basically coherent policy outlook might even be preferable in a lot of ways to the sort of short-term thinking that grips the GOP right now. But although it has a number of high profile supporters, so far it doesn’t seem to be having much success in the actual halls of power. Indeed, if there is an upstart reform movement in the Republican party that actually seems to be gaining traction at the moment, it’s the one that draws more from the libertarian side of the right than from Douthat’s brand of lightly technocratic soft-social conservatism.

¶Part of the reason the Rand Pauls of the world have had some success recently is that there’s space for an anti-establishment faction within the Republican party, and a growing frustration with the arrogance and ineffectiveness of the old guard. But that faction has also—though not always consistently—drawn from two important, and related, libertarian insights: that government, especially large and complex government, is not a very effective tool for doing lots of things, and that, as a result, it’s not a terribly useful tool for achieving big-picture social goals. I’m tempted to say that it embraces a politics of difference, but that probably goes a little too far. Instead, it embraces a politics of privateness, one that assumes, as a given, that the public realm, and public policy, can only accomplish so much, and that they should be limited accordingly. It’s another, still-evolving brand of conservative reformism, one that also says it cares—not by what it tries to do for you (or to you), but by what it promises it won’t

I think this is right. To the extent that there’s a Big Idea for where the G.O.P. should go from here that has any real traction within the party (as opposed to among right-of-center pundits) and that doesn’t just reflect the self-interest of the G.O.P.’s big donors, it’s probably what Ben Domenech has termed “populist libertarianism” — a strain of thought that moves from the standard grassroots conservative view of Washington as an inherently corrupt realm of special interests and self-dealing elites to a broader skepticism of “bigness” in all its forms (corporate as well as governmental), that regards the Bush era as an object lesson in everything that can go wrong (at home and abroad) when conservatives set aside this skepticism, and that sees the cause of limited government as a means not only to safeguarding liberty, but to unwinding webs of privilege and rent-seeking and enabling true equality of opportunity as well.

This is a Tea Party idea from 2010, in a sense, but it’s been given more heft by figures like Senator Paul and by potential 2016 contenders like Bobby Jindal, and its imprint is visible across a range of policy debates: The return of right-wing civil libertarianism and the re-emergence of an anti-interventionist spirit on the right....

@ Libertarian Populism and Its Limits (http://douthat.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/06/04/libertarian-populism-and-its-limits/)

Chris
06-05-2013, 04:02 PM
And commentary on that, that disagrees--but does so for an odd reason, the libertarian movement, like the tea party movement, is not top-down, but bottom-up grassroots, a distributed, decentralized starfish compared to the GOP spider (allusion to Ori Brafman and Rod Beckstrom's The Starfish and the Spider: The Unstoppable Power of Leaderless Organizations).

After citing the above, he goes on...


Douthat’s piece is quite fair and evenhanded, and it’s worth reading the whole thing. But of course, I have my disagreements.

For all this talk of late regarding conservative reform, the most successful conservative reform project of the post-Reagan era was not from the top down, but the bottom up. The Tea Party joined those who favored limited government together regardless of their priorities, and they were successful in a not insignificant part because they were running with the tides of American sentiment as opposed to against them – with a rising skepticism for institutions, particularly those of great size.

They wanted to reform the party, but they did not want the party to just be satisfied with a reform message. Where the traditional trends of Thomas Dewey tend Republicanism toward fixing the institutions of government and society, this new strand had more in common with Charles Murray, whose “What It Means to Be a Libertarian” makes the case not for fixing the departments of Commerce, Agriculture, Energy, and Housing and Urban Development, but for eliminating them and replacing them with, and I quote, “Nothing.”

Rand Paul is going to offer the GOP primary voters in 2016 (and beyond) a principled alternative to the establishment's soft technocracy. He is presenting a brand of libertarianism which offers the people a long overdue challenge to the establishment and the fusionist movement. Libertarian populists recognize intrinsically that the old fusionism is dead. The seat atop the legs of the stool was communism, and then for a brief time – really, just 2004 – Islamic terrorism. Today the most reliable social conservatives are also the most economically conservative, and there is no monolith on foreign policy. The New Fusionism is libertarian populism, and it understands: there is no stool....

@ The Libertarian Populist Agenda (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2013/06/05/the_libertarian_populist_agenda_118694.html)

Dr. Who
06-05-2013, 10:57 PM
Nice bluff, jillian. And nice attempt to project your emotions onto me.

Now where does it say what you claimed: And the law prohibits 501(c)4 corporations from engaging in political activity"? --Well consider that just a foul ball. Still two strikes.



And where did i say your response was vague? Making things up again, jillian? Nic supplied a link, I said that was a vague gesture. Try reading closer.It's a legality. If the provisions in the clause do not provide for any activity other than those specified in Jillian's post, then you cannot read in non-specified activities. Legally any statement that specifies that which you can do, excludes everything else. This is contrasted to statements that prohibit specific activities where if it is not listed, it is allowed.

Chris
06-06-2013, 02:47 AM
It's a legality. If the provisions in the clause do not provide for any activity other than those specified in Jillian's post, then you cannot read in non-specified activities. Legally any statement that specifies that which you can do, excludes everything else. This is contrasted to statements that prohibit specific activities where if it is not listed, it is allowed.

Of course it's a legality, it's just a whole lot more complicated than jillian's simple claim.

Let's all recall the IRS didn't target those they suspected of violating any regulation, but simply based it on political names.

It was political action not a legal one.

zelmo1234
06-06-2013, 07:04 AM
I heard a Dem yesterday was trying to discorage the investigation by stating that there were not liberal prganizations present that were targeted by the IRS and the Chairman had to stop and make it clear that they invited the Democrats to bring any and all witnesses of liberal organizations that were harrassed byt the IRS?????

And that he would be gald to take the names and send those invitations? But the Dem could not come up with any of them, they all sailed thru!

Taxcutter
06-06-2013, 07:35 AM
To an extent I agree with the OP.

The GOP (as the Tea Party takes control) should embrace a policy of letting the states figure out social issues like gay marriage, abortion, and drugs for themselves. That way the issues are resolved in a way suitable to the state electorates.

That way the national GOP/Tea Party can concentrate on the righteous agenda of "less spending, less taxation, less government."

With social issues sent to the states what self-respecting libertarian couldn't get behind an agenda that diminishes the interference of the federal government?

Mainecoons
06-06-2013, 07:42 AM
And they also need to acknowledge that the Constitution specifically reserves things like socialized medicine to the state level. If Massachusetts wants to pass and then continue to burden itself with something like MassCare they have that right. If they want to go further and institute single payer, they have that right.

MassCare is a flop. Earlier I posted an analysis of that from a group there that is advocating single payer. Frankly, I'd like to see them get it so we could see the results. In the mean time, the Federal government has no right to be involved in this matter and needs to be removed from it and a host of other unconstitutional activities.

TheDictator
06-06-2013, 09:03 AM
If the social issues were pushed down to the state level, would the religious right be satisfied? Or would they just not vote in federal elections?

Right now many of them want to form a New Party. But yes, about 66% of the workers in the Republican Party, are the Religious Right. They work the phone banks, man the local Parties, do the voter drives, car pools, and are the delegates to all the conventions. At my county Republican meeting almost all are of the Religious right. Eco. cons never show up to anything until elections.

TheDictator
06-06-2013, 09:05 AM
In the last election cycle many Tea Party(ies) where hampered by the IRS.... Lots of libertarians that may have come out for the GOP, if the case was made, stayed home or voted 3rd party.

A lot of the religious right stayed home also.

TheDictator
06-06-2013, 09:09 AM
Not sure how relevant the historical role of the GOP is in this. Why? Because by and large, the conservatives of tomorrow are not going to be much like the conservatives of today. They may be religious, sure, but they aren't social conservatives, or at least don't think the government should keep same sex couples from marrying, or other social changes from emerging.

I believe you are wrong, young people change their view on things as they get older and really understand the issues.

TheDictator
06-06-2013, 09:16 AM
To hear you tell it abortion is the only cultural political issue. It is not.

Yes, and most Americans are Pro-Life.

jillian
06-06-2013, 09:48 AM
Yes, and most Americans are Pro-Life.

not really:



Last summer, a major national survey by Public Religion Research Institute (http://publicreligion.org/research/2011/06/committed-to-availability-conflicted-about-morality-what-the-millennial-generation-tells-us-about-the-future-of-the-abortion-debate-and-the-culture-wars/)
uncovered a surprising but critical feature of the abortion debate: 7-in-10 Americans reported that the term “pro-choice” described them somewhat well (32 percent) or very well (38 percent), and nearly two-thirds simultaneously said that the term “pro-life” described them somewhat well (31 percent) or very well (35 percent). In other words: when they were not forced to choose between one label and the other, over 4-in-10 (43 percent) Americans said that they were both “pro-choice” and “pro-life.”
These overlapping identities are present in virtually every demographic group. For example, it is true of Democrats (56 percent “pro-life”; 81 percent “pro-choice”), Independents (66 percent “pro-life”; 73 percent “pro-choice”), and Republicans (79 percent “pro-life”; 52 percent “pro-choice”). Among religious groups, with the exception of white evangelical Protestants, solid majorities of every major religious group say both terms describe them at least somewhat well. And even in the case of white evangelical Protestants, although two-thirds (67 percent) say abortion should be illegal in all or most cases and 8-in-10 (80 percent) say that the term “pro-life” describes them at least somewhat well, nearly half (48 percent) nonetheless identify as “pro-choice.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/figuring-faith/post/pro-choice-and-pro-life-on-abortion-americans-say-its-complicated/2012/05/29/gJQAjj0qyU_blog.html

information is your friend.

and evangelicals shouldn't be making our legislative policy.

thanks mucho.

TheDictator
06-06-2013, 09:58 AM
and evangelicals shouldn't be making our legislative policy.




And Liberals should not also

jillian
06-06-2013, 10:17 AM
And Liberals should not also

really?

how do you figure? the first amendment says government stays away from religion. no one is here to legislate your extremist religious agenda.

is there someone forcing you to have an abortion?

anyone keeping you from going to church?

worshipping as you please?

keeping you from marrying the person you love?

stop whining... you're like professional victims.

Chris
06-06-2013, 10:23 AM
To an extent I agree with the OP.

The GOP (as the Tea Party takes control) should embrace a policy of letting the states figure out social issues like gay marriage, abortion, and drugs for themselves. That way the issues are resolved in a way suitable to the state electorates.

That way the national GOP/Tea Party can concentrate on the righteous agenda of "less spending, less taxation, less government."

With social issues sent to the states what self-respecting libertarian couldn't get behind an agenda that diminishes the interference of the federal government?

That's the only way, federalism, to have to freedom to find the right solutions to social issues--I'd even argue leave to more local level than the states.

We recently discussed Justice Ginsberg coming to the same federalist conclusion about Roe v Wade.

Agravan
06-06-2013, 12:32 PM
really?

how do you figure? the first amendment says government stays away from religion. no one is here to legislate your extremist religious agenda.

is there someone forcing you to have an abortion?

anyone keeping you from going to church?

worshipping as you please?

keeping you from marrying the person you love?

stop whining... you're like professional victims.

Where does it mention in the First Amendment that government stays away from religion?

nic34
06-06-2013, 01:18 PM
Where does it mention in the First Amendment that government stays away from religion?

Can you deny that the first guarantees the principle of religious liberty, even though those words do not appear there?
Similarly, the first amendment guarantees the principle of the separation of church and state - by implication, because separating church and state is what allows religious liberty to exist.

Chris
06-06-2013, 01:31 PM
Can you deny that the first guarantees the principle of religious liberty, even though those words do not appear there?
Similarly, the first amendment guarantees the principle of the separation of church and state - by implication, because separating church and state is what allows religious liberty to exist.

Pretty well said.

But that doesn't keep the religious out of government

nic34
06-06-2013, 01:32 PM
....unfortunately.

Mister D
06-06-2013, 01:36 PM
....unfortunately.

Why is that unfortunate? The religious have been in government since this nation's inception.

Private Pickle
06-06-2013, 01:41 PM
....unfortunately.

You do realize this is the equivalent of saying things like "It's unfortunate that black people are allowed in government." right?

nic34
06-06-2013, 01:44 PM
no, it's not....

Mister D
06-06-2013, 01:45 PM
no, it's not....

What's the difference? Both indicate intolerance.

nic34
06-06-2013, 01:49 PM
Yes, I'm intolerant of religion being in the government... when it has no constitutionl basis for being there.

Prayers in congress, in the pledge, religion on money...

Mister D
06-06-2013, 01:52 PM
Yes, I'm intolerant of religion being in the government... when it has no constitutionl basis for being there.

Prayers in congress, in the pledge, religion on money...

That's not what you said, nic. Is English your first language?

nic34
06-06-2013, 02:03 PM
I have no problem with the "religious" being in government, I just have no tolerance for those that impose their religion on government. Better?

Mister D
06-06-2013, 02:07 PM
I have no problem with the "religious" being in government, I just have no tolerance for those that impose their religion on government. Better?

Yes. Thank you. :smiley:

Now when this kid gave his speech do you think religion was being imposed on anyone?

KC
06-06-2013, 02:18 PM
Yes. Thank you. :smiley:

Now when this kid gave his speech do you think religion was being imposed on anyone?

More than likely he was expressing his own religious belief, through public prayer. Quite courageous.

Chris
06-06-2013, 07:33 PM
....unfortunately.

Why unformately? Is it not a government of, for and by the people? Er, shouldn't it be?

Think about it other way around, what if the irreligious like you were kept out of government, prevented even from voting. Would that be...fair?



I have no problem with the "religious" being in government, I just have no tolerance for those that impose their religion on government. Better?

OK, yea, sorry, I should have read further before commenting.

Taxcutter
06-07-2013, 08:30 AM
I'm intolerant of tyrannical socialists in government.