« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

The GOP’s Redheaded Stepchildren

By: Brookhaven (Diary)  |  November 29th, 2012 at 03:19 PM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

Every party has its wings–different sub-groups that are part of the larger organization. The Republican party has three wings that the Republican leadership believes is so dangerous to the future of the party, that they tried to suppress their influence in the last election, and pointed fingers at them as the reason for the GOP’s poor showing in the 2012 election cycle.

The Tea Party

It originally sprung up in opposition to out of control government spending. It has become a grass-roots movement centered around government fiscal responsibility. It has a tendancy to work outside the Republican party machinery, which has engendered the wrath of the GOP establishment.

It’s not unusual for a primary candidate to be scorned by the GOP establishment, simply because the candidate is considered a tea partier. Tea partiers felt like they were locked out of the 2012 convention. The GOP is highly critical of any tea party slip ups and magnifies them into major failures. Conversely, the GOP establishment seems to conveniently fail to give the tea party credit for its successes (Marco Rubio for example). It seems as if the GOP establishment now wishes the tea party would just go away.

Social Conservatives

They are concerned about government using its influence to push the country socially to the left. While they get pigeon-holed as the pro-life/pro-traditional-marriage group, in the larger sense they are concerned about government policies that undermine family integrity (such as the welfare state) and an activist judiciary that (1) creates new rights out of thin air that push the country socially to the left, and (2) thwarts any attempt to reign in government social activism.

And, the GOP establishment hates them. They want their votes, but they don’t want them to speak. The aftermath of the 2012 election produced another flood GOP consultants blaming the loss on social conservatives.

Libertarians

You sometimes forget there is a libertarian wing of the Republican party (because it is so loosely tied to the party), but it’s there. When a libertarian leaning candidate emerges (as Paul did in the last primary), you realize how sizeable (and vocal) this group really is. Unfortunately, this group tends to pack up its toys and go home when it doesn’t get its way. Which, is exactly what the GOP establishment wants. If a group can’t be controlled, they would rather it not be part of the GOP. Libertarians (because they are so focused on individual liberty) are the least controllable of all. This is why they (like tea party activists) were shut out of the 2012 convention.

The core philosophy of libertarians is (1) the government should be limited to its constitutional functions, and (2) individual rights trump government and group “rights.” Not that far out there at all, really. Unfortunately, it’s easy to confuse the libertarian messenge with the libertarian messager. Both Ron Paul and the actual Libertarian party are much farther out onto the edge on a host of issues than the typical libertarian leaning Republican, giving many people the impression that libertarian is a code word for wacko. It’s not. It is though, the only wing of the GOP that attracts large numbers of college students and young voters (something conservatives of all stripes should be very aware of; if you can’t pull in young people, your movement will grow old and die).

The GOP establishment sees all three groups as more trouble than they are worth. Hence its constant maneuvering to silence, shut-out, and shut-down all three. But, without these groups, what would the Republican party be left with? Without tea partiers (fiscal conservatives), without social conservatives (family values and judicial restraint), and without libertarians (individual liberty and adherence to the Constitution) what would be left; what would the Republican party become?

The party of business and defense.

Is that enough? Can the GOP survive (much less flourish) emphasizing business and defense, while deemphasizing everything else? Obviously not, but that would seem to be the path the GOP establishment is taking the party down, as it continues to attempt to suppress the influence of the tea party movement, social conservatives, and libertarians.

Maybe it’s time the red-headed stepchildren focus on working with each other, instead or working with the GOP establishment. I’m not sure if this would take the form of another party, or a redheaded coalition within the GOP, but whatever form, it would certainly be more effective than the current situation.

Don’t think the three groups can work together? Social conservatives tend to be fiscal conservatives, which lines up the the tea party. Tea partiers want government to stay within its constitutional bounds, and so do libertarians. Libertarians are concerned about judges who legislate from the bench, as are social conservatives. When you lay it out, the three groups’ goals, they mesh nicely. Not perfectly, but there is a lot of overlap. Enough, certainly, to form a coalition.

Perhaps it’s time the redheaded stepchildren get together and quit being children.

PS

And, for those that think libertarians are inherently pro-abortion, consider that Ron Paul (the libertarian wing’s poster boy from 2012) is pro-life, Bob Barr (the 2008 Libertarian party nominee) is pro-life, and Michal Bardnarik (the 2004 Libertarian party nominee) is pro-life. Support for abortion does not seem to be a litmus test for libertarian thought. Most libertarians believe that Roe v. Wade should be overturned and the matter returned to the state level. A position a significant number of social conservatives also agree with.

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • http://gardenslegal.com morstar150

    Thank you for this diary. You have stated in simple terms the real plague within the Republican party, that is the “elite” Republicans want to dictate our philosophy in terms that please the media. They want to embrace the moderate to liberal views of a social form of government but just not as much as the Democrats. The real strength in the Republican party is in those three groups that you mentioned: The Tea Party, the Social Conservatives and the Libertarians. Just don’t speak out loud.

    • Brookhaven

      The other idea I was trying to get across was that we (conservatives) are not impotent–at least not when we work together. But, as long as we stay divided, we’ll be conquered by the party establishment.

    • rustyoldgarand

      The problem here is that the social conservatives and the libertarians specifically disagree on many issues, it seems. I don’t know exactly where to fit the tea party into this schema because tea is not a clearly defined ideology, but there is a clear and yawning gap right now between the left (libertarian) and right (social cons) wings of the GOP. That is not the fault of “the establishment”, but rather a fact of life.

  • http://gardenslegal.com morstar150

    I also think that we should also change the term Tea Party to Redheaded Stepchildren so that the media darlings can stop calling us tea baggers, an obnoxious derogatory term that tries to denigrate us into a lower subspecies than the Occupiers. How absurd is all that?

    • Brookhaven

      The left will always try an denigrate us. One, it’s in their nature to name call, and two, it’s an Alinsky tactic.

      I do get puzzled though about why we continually let the left use rhetoric to define the terms of the debate. Fiscal cliff? Falling off a cliff is something to be avoided at all costs, so by using their rhetoric we’ve already moved half-way towards their position.

      If we had constantly called it fiscal medicine day, we could have been arguing that cutting spending was needed to make us fiscally better. But noooooo! Instead we’re talking about avoiding a cliff.

  • celador2

    I like those red headed step kids!

  • actionsspeaklouderthanwords

    Given that most CEO’s and most extremely wealthy people are Democrats (Buffet, Gates, Hollywood types, etc.), I’m not so sure the Republicans have much of a business and defense base outside of the military-industrial complex. Most soldiers I know supported Ron Paul.

    I’d further surmise that Tea Partiers, Social Conservatives, and Libertarians like each other a whole lot more than they like the Republican establishment.

    Seems to me the Washington D.C. based Republican establishment is the odd man out here, and a viable alternative wouldn’t be a very hard sell.

    • revtm

      I have to say something, No most wealthy people are not democrats, neither are most CEOs. There are pockets of heavily democratic wealthy (usually tech industry types, Hollywood, and the weird Warren Buffet who doesnt fit the usual mold) but the majority of the wealthy do prefer republican policys to democrats.

      Also I have to say, I knew very few soldier who supported ron paul, and in my primary work i didnt see all that man UOCAVA votes coming in for Dr. Paul. taking nothing away from Dr. Paul at all or his message but this is a myth that a lot of Paul folks have tried to spread due to having a disproportionately active military base (military voters are not super active usually, his tend to be vocal and active)

  • revtm

    another rant against “establishment” republicans. No pointing out how each of those groups themselves was at fault and i hate to point out how none of those “step children” ever unite behind any single candidate and always someone gets left behind. You can say one thing about the “establishment” its that when they lose a primary they dont abandon these Social Conservatives or Tea Partiers in the general.DESPITE the automatic assumption of that being the case every time one of them loses.

    • revtm

      Looking back the tone of my post is a touch harsh, however i stand by the points.

    • westcoastpatriette

      How can you say the establishment doesn’t abandon social conservatives in generals? Ever heard of Mourdock or Akin? Please stay on point and don’t go on a rant re: how they deserved to be abandoned as it makes you look like the establishment defending the establishment.

      • revtm

        anytime i write establishment, just imagine it in quotes I’d rather not do it over and over as it looks snotty but I dont feel there is an “establishment” republican party i think its something thats been used to broadly define moderate republicans, political professionals, and long time party loyals, regardless of their conservative beliefs.

        Mourdock and Akin killed themselves, AND both their state parties continued to support them. Akin had a chance to backout after his statements and didn’t.
        When Rand Paul won the primary the establishment rallied behind him, same with Ted Cruz, same with Mourdock until he shot himself in the foot at the end. Sharron Angle was a poor candidate that the tea party sky rocketed to the forefront and the establishment rallied behind her despite her ineptitude, the “establishment” backed the heck out of Bill Brady and the establishment even backed Rubio with an establishment candidate still in the race. These republicans have had no problem inviting Jim Jordan and Michele Bachmann to headline their events or give the powerful committee spots to these folks.

        • westcoastpatriette

          I don’t see what purpose you are serving by trying to blur the distinction between true conservatives and RINOs. It is the kind of denial that keeps causing us to lose elections. There is a difference and if you cannot see that you must be blind.

          “I dont feel there is an “establishment” republican party i think its
          something thats been used to broadly define moderate republicans,
          political professionals, and long time party loyals, regardless of their
          conservative beliefs.” This is gobbledy-gook. Moderates, political professionals and long-time party loyalists are not conservative. And that is the problem. They may have started out that way, but they have morphed into Democrat or Socialist lite. Maybe you need to learn the difference between the two and what this site is all about.

          • revtm

            There are different types of Conservatives. not every conservative is the same. A moderate conservative is still a conservative. MANY political professionals are very conservative, as are MANY party loyalists.Folks who have been voting republican since Eisenhower are no less conservative simply because they have been voting conservative since Eisenhower. This site is about conservatism, just because your type of conservatism and Scott Browns type of conservatism arent the same does not make Scott Brown a liberal.He is just a different kind of conservative. The problem is people like you who have no problem dismissing every single person who doesn’t agree 100% with you. Its these people who are destroying our chances, not this so called establishment.

            I am a professional campaign consultant, I am considered by some as “far right” and no one would dare call me a moderate, but I am vehemently anti-death penalty. Does that make me a RINO? Is Brian Sandoval not a conservative because he is pro-choice? This idea of a litmus test is destroying the right wing. The democrats are a party of radical far leftists, social liberals, and socially conservative blue collar democrats, part of the reason they beat us is post primary they rally, we dont, and often times remain fractured, we need the so called establishment as much as we need the tea party (if not more)

            These attacks on our own party need to stop, we need to rally around the Mark Kirks, Scott Browns, and the Shelley Capitos as much as we rally behind the Ted Cruzs, Jim DeMints and Jim Jordans. I have no problem with electing the closest to perfection candidate we can, but we need to focus on the electing as well. Shelley Capito has a real chance at beating Rockefeller in West Virginia if she gets primary’d as it appears club for growth is planning on it and loses it will be an all but impossible race for us.. If teaparty backed candidates had not knocked out conservative but not ideologically perfect in the Gov. race in IL or the Senate races in NV,DE, MO, and IN we would be in a much different situation right now.

          • westcoastpatriette

            Suit yourself, I strongly disagree with you on a number of points but see no reason to argue about it as neither one of us sound open to changing our positions.

          • http://parsoned.blogspot.com parsoned

            Not to unduly butt in on your argument, but Scott Brown is in no way a conservative. Unless a liberal is just another variety of conservative. In which case, terms have no meaning anyway…

            And while Mark Kirk is better than an IL Democrat, he is in no way a conservative. He’s a Republican. But he’s no conservative in any meaningful definition of the word.

          • revtm

            Scott Brown is not a liberal either really I get your points but I would say Scott brown is as far left as you can possibly get on the conservative scale, hes a moderate. hes a 50.01% conservative, but hes not a liberal.

            Scott Brown voted with conservative causes around 70% of the time with his brief career in the senate and Kirks around 60% for his career including the house. a 70 and 60% conservative is still a conservative (these are based on the ACU ratings) it may not be AS conservative a you want or to shoe horn into your definition, but its still conservative.

          • commonsenseobserver

            Moderates do deserve a little credit for helping us with filibusters most of the time.

          • revtm

            exactly. we can’t get our conservative ideals done in government without moderate republicans and we have to stop vilifying and crucifying them at all costs the only people getting hurt are us. Direct the vitriol where it belongs at the left.

          • celador2

            The CD in Ohio that sends Boehner back to the House must like him enough to return him.They are entitled to him. But the House caucus itself could replace him as Speaker. He had no challenger, only one nomnation for Newt for Speaker but no second
            .
            Boehner does not represent the rank and file party member or conservatives’ views.
            .

          • revtm

            Boehner is not some liberal himself, I’d like to point out while his CD loves him (true) so it appears does the rank and file party as it was pretty overwhelming him returning to speaker. YOU may not like Boehner (i do) but the man is very good at getting his members in line, which is the key to being a speaker

          • avgjo

            Boehner is a wimp. That you like him speaks volumes.

          • revtm

            ah what depth and insight, what rapier wit.

            Boehner is what he is. Boehner is not a great charismatic leader, he is not ronald reagan, Boehner is also very good at what he does. he is a grinder, and he does a fantastic job of keeping his delegation in line while also allowing for minor dissents to appease his members principals. Say what you want about Boehner but if he was as spineless and hated as everyone on this board thinks, where is his challenge? his own reps (be they ultra conservative like Cantor or moderate) seem to appreciate what he does.

          • avgjo

            Sometimes what is needed is a mere statement, not an attempt at wit. (By the way, judging by the rather low quality of the manure you’ve been spreading, I’m sorry, your comments, I wouldn’t comment on anyone’s insight or wit.) Perhaps if our ‘smart kids’ (who are anything but) would implement this simple principle, we’d be in a different place as a nation.

            This is a real gem:

            Boehner is also very good at what he does. he is a grinder, and he does a fantastic job of keeping his delegation in line while also allowing for minor dissents to appease his members principals.

            Could you give some specifics? (N.B.:It’s ‘princplES’; a ‘principal’ runs a school or organization).

            Boehner has caved on everything, from the debt ceiling to rolling over right after Obama won. His crying has opened him to all sorts of ridicule. He could be credited, I suppose, with holding the line on Obamacare, but really, that was a no-brainer. Aside from that, could you please show me anything significant for which he’s held the line.

            As far as his support in the House, that is easily explained by the disconnect between the ruling class and their constituents. These freshmen Tea Party congresscritters go into the barrel of crap we call D.C., and the stink seeps in. They just go with the flow. It would explain why after the exalted Boner took the speakership, the approval rating of Congress remained dismal, in the low teens. Certainly, if he were doing the fine job you claim he was, and your sentiments towards him were widespread, you’d at least see approval ratings approaching the percentage of the electorate that is republican/conservative. But then again, maybe we rubes just don’t have the ‘wit’ to appreciate someone like Boner.

          • celador2

            Brown made a difference in January 2010.

            The US constitution by design guarantees every state two Senators. These senators reflect the voters of each state and are by no means one size fits all. Economics used to dominate a Senator’s point of view more than they do today. From the early days slave states and free states promoted and defended condtions and policies that creted the regional and states economies.

            In 2009 MItch McConnell had 39 Senators in the GOP caucus. House was majoritian by design so there was an unchecked super majority for two years during which Obamacare, stimulus and bailouts passed with no GOP input. No Republican was asked to take part in design of ACA, for example.

            January 2010 MA had a specual election for Senate and Scott Brown won mostly over oppositon to ACA or Obamacare He stood for strong defense and militrary. He joined the GOP caucus and bumped the 39 to 40 members thus breaking the 60 seat control Reid had to move uncehced without filibuster.

            Brown broke the Democratic super majority hold.

        • ww2nd95

          You’re absolutely right. Akin and Mourdock did shoot themselves in the foot. I don’t see how anyone can blame the so called establishment for Akin’s demise. Akin got crushed by the most vulnerable Democrat running for Senate. She killed him. Now if the “establishment” had stepped in and backed him, I’m not sure it would have made up for the 15% blow she laid on him. Mourdock on the other hand was a reasonable candidate, who was in a close race anyhow and was backed by everyone, including Romney, so I’m not sure how WCP can say he was abandoned. He made a last minute fatal error that just tipped things Donnely’s way.

          We need candidates that don’t scare off voters. We all know **** well that if Christine O’Donnell, Sharon Angle, Todd Akin, and the like, have cost us the Senate for two cycles now, that we were favored in. 2014 is it. If we do not get the Senate back at that point, I’m not sure when the next time will roll around, because 2016 favors the Dems.

          • revtm

            I’m glad you see the reasonable point of view i’ve tried to propose

  • westcoastpatriette

    I really have not seen a lot of friction between Tea Party and social conservatives as many Tea Partyers are also socially conservative although they may not feel the same sense of urgency about the social degradation in the culture as strong soc cons do.

    If we ever form a working coalition with Libertarians, they will have to let go of demanding that soc cons retreat on social issues and stop obsessing over how our positions on these matters are imposing on their liberty. Liberty comes with responsibility not license, and their extreme positions on individual liberty makes it difficult to coalesce with them.

    • mtmnd

      “If we ever form a working coalition with Libertarians, they will have to let go of demanding that soc cons retreat on social issues and stop obsessing over how our positions on these matters are imposing on their liberty.”

      Wow that is some basis for compromise. Sort of like the President saying lets compromise by everyone accepting my tax hikes and giving me everything else I want.

      • westcoastpatriette

        It isn’t meant to be compromise. That’s the whole point. Duh.

        • mtmnd

          If they continue to refuse to compromise, socons will continue to cause the GOP to lose winnable elections. Duh.

          • westcoastpatriette

            Haven’t seen a lot of Libertarians winning a lot of elections lately, have you? Hahaha.

          • mtmnd

            No, I haven’t. Libertarians are just as stubborn as socons, and a lot of good that has done.

          • westcoastpatriette

            I know it seems like tit for tat, but the main difference is that soc cons are right and libertarians are not. It is very simple. Anyone who defies God, shakes their fist in His face and promotes homosexuality or infanticide (under the guise of individual liberty as libertarians do — and I know not all support infanticide), is contributing to the debasing of the culture and destruction of the country. Not to mention opposing the very God who gave them their liberty. Liberty is not license and carries with it a need for virtue in order to function and thrive. These issues cannot be compromised.

            To me, libertarians are childish and irrational in their demands to legalize drugs, prostitution and every diabolical activity humans are capable of engaging in. They quickly lose their credibility with most people by over emphasizing these issues as most rational people can see the danger in what they are proposing — even if they agree with them.

            Where I completely concur with them is on their view of limited government especially in fiscal matters. They just go too far in seeing all laws as curbing their “individual liberties” and that is where we part ways.

          • revtm

            your argument is really “Socons are right and libertarians are not”

          • westcoastpatriette

            Pretty much, yeah. Not because we’re so smart, we just learned in life that you will be on the losing side of any issue (individually and culturally) if you oppose God. That is just common sense. And for those who resent that, that’s just life. We didn’t make the rules and we aren’t the Creator and Sustainer of it all.

          • revtm

            thats not common sense, thats faith. Look its clear you are a very faithful religious person, possibly evangelical, I consider myself a faithful person as well but “I am right and you are wrong” is no argument and just makes you look silly.

          • westcoastpatriette

            That’s funny. Makes perfect sense to me. There is still such a thing as right and wrong. And if you choose wrong, that is not lack of faith, it’s stupidity or naivete or, better yet, pure rebellion.

          • revtm

            its faith that makes your side “right” and the other side “wrong”
            The fact that you dont get this makes me smile, I’m trying to give you the benefit of the doubt here but you keep digging yourself deeper

          • westcoastpatriette

            Guess we better just drop it again. We cannot seem to have a civil discussion without getting each other’s dander up. I’m done for the night. Goodnight.

          • avgjo

            Hey, revtm, can you name a society that became socially liberal and remained economically prosperous and fiscally conservative?

            Faith, perhaps (which I share), but backed up by historical reality.

          • revtm

            all the great ancient civilizations were always socially liberal states, be it Rome or Greece or Egypt.
            But what you are asking for is impossible, because no society has remained prosperous for its run, Governments will eventually fail, be they due to the left or due to the right, at some point someone always usurps someone else.
            I could ask the same question in the opposite (is there a society that has remained socially conservative AND prospered economically) and you’d be unable to name any.

          • avgjo

            AAAAANK! Wrong!

            Rome started off socially conservative. Paterfamilias, ‘do ut des’ relationship with the gods, lex scantinia, etc. It was after the material abundance amassed by those social conservatives that the cultural rot set in and Rome began it’s long road to total decline.

            Greece also started off with strict gender roles, with a general disapproval towards abortion (read Roe v. Wade decision – the majority even acknowledges this), patriotism, and the most enlightened of the Greeks, Socrates came to the rational decision that sexual behavior done for pleasure’s sake (such as homosexual behavior) was irrational and led to the sort of character voluptuosity that destroys people. I would also point out that Greece, with its famously decadent culture, lasted for a much shorter duration than Rome, and never approached the wealth or might of that Republic.

            Your last assertion is absolute malarkey (although it really has no bearing on what I said, since it is a well known fact that the converse of a true statement is not necessarily true.)

            In the 1950s, America was famously conservative (every lib today uses the 50s to lampoon American conservatism – ‘they want to return to the 50s’ and all that bull). It was also famously prosperous. Then along came the spoiled, self-indulgent brats of the 60s. Isn’t it funny that within 40 years (very nearly a Biblical generation) of that period of rapid moral decline in this country (free ‘love’, widespread drug use, rebellion against authority), we have the strictures of civil liberty, financial liberty and now the Obama generation.

            Britain, once a very Christian nation, and whose people are still, by European standards, considered conservative, once ruled 1/4 of the globe. Then the nonsense of John Stuart Mills,Bertrand Russell and the analytic school of philosophy (nonsense with respect to moral philosophy – certainly all of these made various major contributions to logic, mathematics and method) seeped in. Christianity went on the wane there, Britain became much more morally loose (to the point that today any opposition to abortion, homosexual marriage or whatever ‘social’ issue seems like a meaningless novelty) and that country is now in complete bondage to socialism.

            The Netherlands, Northern Europe, France, Spain, modern Greece, etc. They are all bound to high taxation, little financial opportunity for advancement in financial position and, yes, to social liberalism. I think further, it may be argued that whatever material prosperity they’ve enjoyed, esp. in the latter half of the 20th century, has been due to the, wait for it, socially conservative (at least until the 60s) America, which rebuilt Europe after WWII (again, before the pestilent 60s) and has provided defense for that part of the world, freeing them to spend their money on idiotically ‘clever’ social experiments.

            China, which has turned its back on its traditional values of having large families (i.e., pro-life values), has prospered because of idiotic ‘free trade’ policies that have allowed it to steal technology, because of the capital of idiots from this country who are more worried about turning a buck than strengthening the economy of a nation pointing missiles at us, and because we can’t manufacture anything here (gasp, another post-60s, post-moral decline ‘advancement’ of this country). However, even this will probably be short-lived. They’ve killed all their babies. They don’t have the population to sustain things. I’ve read that the demographic crash is coming for them starting in around 2030.

            BTW, speaking of killing babies…

            Since that ‘enlightened’, definitely anti-socially-conservative decision by the Supreme Court, Roe v. Wade, this country has murdered 55 million babies. What’s that about unfunded liabilities? Boy, those taxpayers sure would have helped us out, huh?

            Again, the position that a nation can be socially liberal and financially prosperous is a result of historical illiteracy.

          • Melody Warbington

            Bookmarking this comment, avgjo, with my thanks.

          • avgjo

            Thank you.

            My pleasure.

      • revtm

        shes an ideologue, nothing wrong with that, but theres no compromise

      • avgjo

        It’s absolutely a compromise. The libertarians are the ‘heads I win, tails you lose’ people in the deal. They want their perverse, historically incorrect, logically flawed understanding of the Constitution to be implemented, and their view of fiscal policy to be implemented. That, or the highway. That’s why they vote for nuts that can’t win, like Ronulus or Gary Johnson.

        Social conservatives are for more limited government than the libs. We believe in free enterprise and we believe that the Constitution is the law of the land.

        Problem is, most libertarians are globalist, free-love, pot-smoking hippies, with a capitalist bent.

    • Brookhaven

      Stop confusing libertarian leaning Republicans with capital-L Libertarian party member. The Libertarain party itself has gone off the deep end in may areas. Libertarain leaning Republicans have not. And, having at one time or another considered my self a member of all three groups (tea party, social conservatives, and libertarians) I know there is plenty of common ground between the groups.

      Let’s focus on some of the things both groups can obviously work together on.

      Should Roe v. Wade be overturned? Social conservatives say yes; libertarians say yes.

      Should the government fund abortions or abortion providers (like Planned Parenthood)? Social conservatives say no; libertarians say no.

      Should we continue with welfare programs that undermine the family? Social conservatives say no; libertarians say no.

      You can go on and on about where social conservatives and libertarians meet on policy issues. Now, they may come to their policy conclusions for different reasons, but the fact is they still come to the same position.

      As I noted in the PS, abortion is NOT a bedrock libertarian position. Heck, even 2 of the last 3 Libertarian party presidential candidates have been pro-life. You may want to check out the Libertarians for Life website http://www.l4l.org/index.html before you label all libertarians as being pro-abortion (yes, Virginia, there are pro-life libertarians). As a pro-life, social conservatives shouldn’t you be working WITH the libertarian pro-lifers, instead of just dismissing them?

      I’d also point you at this Abortion and Rights: Applying Libertarian Principles Correctly. Not a single religious reference in the article; and what is their conclusion? Libertarians should be pro-life.

      In fact, we in the pro-life movement (yes, I am a pro-lifer) would do well to study the libertarian pro-life argument, because it gives us A LOT of ammunition to persuade people to the pro-life side beyond the religious/moral arguments.

      • westcoastpatriette

        “You may want to check out the Libertarians for Life website http://www.l4l.org/index.html before you label all libertarians as being pro-abortion.”

        I didn’t do that — I made an exception several comments up — that I know not all support abortion rights.

        I am doing the same thing you are trying to do in terms of trying to find common ground because there is so much we agree on. At the same time, there are still many — John Stossel anyone? — who will go on at length re: legalizing drugs, prostitution and homosexual marriage — and they are passionate about it. IOW, these things are not minor issues to them and I have butted heads with many of them over these kinds of issues many times.

        Sometimes — as much as we want to find common ground — there will be areas where it is impossible to compromise. That’s just reality.

        • Brookhaven

          OK, there will be things we can’t agree on. But, I think the ideologue libertarians (like Stossel) have the bigger problem (there’s a reason they had to form their own party).

          The underlying philosophy of the Democratic party and the left is collectivism–totally incompatible with libertarian thought. While conservatism differs in many ways from libertarianism, the core focus of both on the individual is compatible.

          If gay marriage, drug legalization, and prostitution are at the top of someone’s list then they are probably voting Democrat. You can’t please everyone and you can’t be all things to all people. But, it has been my experience that most libertarian leaning Republicans have a larger world-view than that.

          Consider also that a lot of young people (and I would include myself here) start out as libertarians in their high school and college years, and become conservatives (even social conservatives) in the subsequent years. Think of libertarianism as the “gateway drug” to conservatism.

          • westcoastpatriette

            “Think of libertarianism as the “gateway drug” to conservatism.” That’s good. I like that.