In all the vortex of commentary in the aftermath of the election, one argument in particular seems to me both plausible and troubling. I keep hearing people say, “The Republican Party has to go libertarian. Enough with social conservatism. Nobody wants it anymore. Christian America is dead and gone. We’ve got to promote an ideology of freedom, where the government just keeps its hands off all private matters, whether marriage or abortion or drugs or anything else. That will attract the younger voters.”
It’s conceivable, but I have a lot of trouble with it. Those who promote homosexual marriage have very poor track record of leaving alone the people who refuse to recognize it. They’re awfully prone to use laws to force acquiescence from businesspeople, or even churches, who don’t want to play that game. And I, personally, think that a society needs to privilege man-woman marriage in order to make it worthwhile for men to enter into marriages. Otherwise, men are congenitally inclined to wander away, and then the wife falls into the arms of the welfare state, which grows government, the very thing libertarianism wants to reduce.
I will never donate to a party that promotes abortion. And I consider drugs a societal danger. You may consider Amsterdam a paradise on earth, but I wouldn’t want to live there.
Still, a libertarian regime might be more tolerant of Christians, all in all, than the socialist one we seem to headed to.
In either case, the old republic as we knew it is gone, it would seem.
It’s not gone yet. I heard a Puerto Rican conservative leader say Romney practically stiff-armed Latinos, even telling someone he might wish he looked more Mexican so he could get more votes. I also heard people talking about the death of the Most Electable Candidate idea. Anyway, America may suffer due to wildly incompetent people in the highest offices, but their going down in flames may be good overall. We’ve had wildly incompetent people in the White House before.
You are right about a libertarian regime.
Much better than one that seeks to control every. Single. Aspect. Of. Your. Life.
There is some merit to the Libertarian system that appeals to me, but no system will be satisfactory or meet idealistic expectations apart from the Cross of Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ was not a capitalist or a Marxist communist/socialist. Unless one bears the Cross of Christ they will not be free from this fallen world, but will continually be disillusioned with it into despair unless they accept their fate as exiles who are living in the world but not of the world who are seeking their true homeland.
Regarding libertariansim, there’s an interesting little video game called Bioshock that sets a Randian objectivist as its main villian. Although the narrative goes too far in that it mostly rejects free markets, it points out something salient: A market economy cannot work apart from commonly shared public virtue. Free markets really may be a fruit of the gospel
Brad, I don’t think the Kingdom of God has died. But I think Christian America has died. Imperfect like all human institutions, it was still the best place to live in human history.
I think you’re right Lars. But just remember, contrary to Romney’s add, this country isn’t and never was the hope of the Earth.
One big problem with this theory is that there already is a party that looks like the Libertarian Party, namely the Libertarian Party, and you see just how many tens of millions of people are joining up with their bandwagon.
Let me add that the one thing the Libertarian Party does that the Republicans should mimic is that the Libertarians have a clear, unwavering viewpoint which they maintain with a high degree of internal consistency, and they don’t change their views with every gust of wind or pressure to appeal to some demographic bloc. Win or lose (mostly lose), they believe what they believe, and I respect that, but since I disagree with them on many points, I’m not a Libertarian. I have a great liking and respect for Rep. Ron Paul, the pro-life Libertarianoid Republican who maintains a principled stand which is much closer to my beliefs, but since I strongly suspect that many “Ron Paul or nobody” folks are among the estimated 3 million Republican non-voters who may have handed the election to Obama, I’m not very pleased with them right now.
Michael, Libertarians are not all that clear on all beliefs. Paul is very pro-life (at least in his rhetoric), but Gary Johnson believes in allowing abortion until the age of viability. That’s worse than Romney and most Republicans who allow the exception of rape and incest (which really isn’t pro-life). Johnson gained a lot of popularity this year. This idea of abortion until the age of viability is monstrous and if it’s the way Libertarianism is going, many conservatives who want something other than what Republicans offer really have no real alternative in elections.
On the abortion issue, I suspect a politician must say he favors the usual exception because the issue is too poisonous to argue the right way, but maybe if the candidate answered that children are people with a protected right to life, he could gain credibility Even then, some will argue that he wants to criminalize saving a mother from a potential fatal tubal pregnancy or whatever situation might threaten a mother’s life.
Maybe I’m changing my mind as I type. Abortion is the civil rights issue of our day (sex trafficking the next) and I question myself on whether I am doing my part to fight it.
I don’t think it’s that hard to argue the right way. Akin stepped in it, but why was what Mourdock said “shocking” as some media said?
I’m with ya on not doing my part. I’m sure there is more I could do than consider it when I vote.