(Apologies to Rodney King) Ward Connery wonders if the libertarians and conservatives will split up before their apogee of influence. Andrew Sullivan gives him "Quote of the Day" honors for this. I must confer.
"No one should find the need to take his marbles and go home just because of one issue (gay marriage). As one who has fought the dragons of leftist public policies for several years, I can attest to the old adage that 'there is strength in numbers.' The political left in our nation succeeds because they remain united around a core conviction - big government, while conservatives and libertarians splinter in the pursuit of ideological purity on every issue. This is insanity. Anyone who would question the dedication to conservative principles of David Horowitz and George Will, for example, because they offer a different perspective on the issue of gays, is out of his friggin' mind. And, I can't put it more eloquently than that. Please, please, please at this moment of national crisis on so many issues, let's not fracture our conservative/libertarian family over one issue."Posted by jk at December 5, 2003 02:56 PM
Hey, who said you get the libertarians on your side? Some of us liberals lay claim to many libertarian views. I know that painting the other side with a broad brush is an easy tactic, as in the political left is universally united around big government, but I expected more from you JK! There are lots of liberals out there who are social liberals and fiscal conservatives who have no more wish to throw money and big government at every problem than the staunch conservatives. Let's not forget that this president added a cabinet position and conscripted tens of thousands of workers into civil servants under the TSA. Not exactly a small government move.
Posted by: Silence Dogood at December 10, 2003 05:32 PMSilence,
My niece makes the same claim but I just don't buy it. Yes, the Democrats are ostensibly less likely to encroach on what you would call social liberties. (They'll sue to ensure that a bum may defecate on the street but will ban smoking...)
I think it would be very rare for a devout Libertarian to lean Democrat. When I look at the soi-disant Democrat achievements: The New Deal, Great Society, &c., these may or may not be good but I cannot see them as anything but reductions in liberty.
The Republican achievements (I'll say soi-disant if you want) include reduction of taxes, opposition to Communism. I'd say these advance liberty.
Republicans and President Bush in particular have not been reliable libertarians by any stretch. I think that National Review, Andrew Sullivan, The WSJ Ed page and even Berkeley Square Blog have been very vocal in opposition.
But at the end of the day, the Rs have done more to advance liberty than the Ds. That is why Larry Elder has switched from L to R -- I have not seen many switch from L to D.
Ok, allow me to cherry pick from history a little.
Democrats: Voting rights for women and blacks. Reduction in voting age to 18. Repeal of prohibition.
Republicans: Prohibition. Segregation. The Patriot Act.
Posted by: Silence Dogood at December 11, 2003 04:29 PMFair point BUT: you had to go back 70 years for prohibition (I did not claim the Emancipation Proclamation, which is a pretty good trade for Republican complicity in segregation...) And I think you blur the lines a lot on the Voting Rights Act. This was pushed by Democrat Executives, but was blocked by the southern Democrat legislators and would never have passed without Republican support.
Eighteen year old vote? Okay, we defeated Communism and liberated half the planet, you rocked the vote -- I'll buy that assessment.
The Patriot Act worries me a lot less than AG Reno's actions at Ruby Ridge, Waco, and Elian's cousins' house.
You're a star, Silence, thanks for your wise counsel.
Posted by: jk at December 12, 2003 10:51 AM2139 You can buy viagra from this site :http://www.ed.greatnow.com
Posted by: Viagra at August 7, 2004 04:10 PM