In response to Eric’s post about winning elections commenter Richard had this to say (among other things):
I am an conservative, not a Republican. If the Republicans advance the cause, I am with them. If not, I am not. America can probably survive another 4 years of a socialist government.
To which I responded:
Richard,
It is my experience that “Conservatives” are just as statist as the “Liberals”. Just about different things.
As far as I can tell the “Cause” of liberals and conservatives is a bigger state. Differing in only details.
“Conservatives” – socialists with a different purpose.
Ever wonder why each party hardly ever undoes the work of the other? Well it would cramp their style for things they are planning to impose.
I agree with Ronnie on this one:
“If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism. I think conservatism is really a misnomer just as liberalism is a misnomer for the liberals — if we were back in the days of the Revolution, so-called conservatives today would be the Liberals and the liberals would be the Tories. The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is.” – Ronald Reagan Reason Magazine July 1975
Conservatives as they are currently understood have a program of moral socialism in store for us. The Liberals of course prefer economic socialism. We will have 4 more years of socialist government no matter what.
With a vote for the Libertarian candidate I can’t lose. I will get socialism (coming no matter what) and I can at least claim moral superiority amongst the wreckage.
So what will I actually do in November? TBD
Comments
7 responses to “Cramping Their Style”
I’m more or less with you on this one. I understand Eric’s frustration and desire to get Obama out of office. But maybe I’m just not as convinced as he is that Romney or Newt is guaranteed to be better than Obama – especially with whatever kind of Congress we might end up with. And with that amount of uncertainty, I’m not going to vote for one statist over another. There’s no point in “winning” if you are indistinguishable from the person you beat.
Given the weak tea that is the Republican Presidential slate, and the Congressional Republicans utter lack of fight since 2010, I’m inclined to return to my policy of the nineties: a protest vote for the Libertarian candidates.
My hope is to vote FOR something for a change.
Thanks for the link!
Perhaps I am naive, but I think all of the GOP candidates are committed to stopping Obamacare, which will be a nightmare if this president continues into a second term. I see that issue alone as enough reason to vote for whatever Republican ends up being on the ticket. (It would help if he gets elected, too.)
Thank you – I’m glad I am not the only one frustrated by the destruction of the word “conservative”. Rick Santorum’s Christian Socialism has nothing to do with conservatism.
I suppose I should have said that I am a conservative with a libertarian bent. Domestic policy, pretty much pure libertarian. Traditional conservative (not neocon) on foreign policy. So I am not sure I disagree with anything here. Except for Eric actually believing that Romney will get rid of Obamacare. He invented it.
In 1963 blacks were not voting in Mississippi. What would libertarians have done about that?
In 1963 blacks were not voting in Mississippi. What would libertarians have done about that?
I can’t speak for all libertarians, but I would argue that this issue was settled by the 14th Amendment, just as gun control was settled by the 2d Amendment. And Mississippi’s actions stopping blacks from voting were as unconstitutional and illegal as the DC’s gun ban.