EW1 has a post recording the wrath, indignation and trouble rampant among conservative blogs, which perforce may bring a discharge of evil messengers on the GOP. Read his post and follow his links for a sample.
To which the libertarian in me is tempted to respond, “You get what you paid for.” The problem with the GOP is that it is composed, at the organizational level, by politicians. And to a politicians what matters is not principles but votes and campaign contributions. The blogosphere recognizes this, if dimly, when it consumes itself with discussions of the best way that conservative votes, or non-votes, and conservative campaign contributions, or non-contributions, can be used to force the GOP back to conservative principles. But their problem is that the politicians are not interested in the principles. In fact, adhering to the principles means the politicians will, in many cases, have to act against their own individual self interest. So if the politicians are dragged back, they’ll bolt again at the first opportunity, like the addict who refuses to believe that he’s an addict.
The GOP, like any group of politicians, is interested in gaining and maintaining power, because power is the means of controlling the flow of government funds (whether as tax breaks, subsidies, programs, or other forms), the spread of information, and the power of government so that all three can be manipulated to whatever end meshes best with their personal interest. Lowering the overall amount of tax revenue, cutting back on goverment programs, opening up the flow of information so government operation is transparent, all conflict with that goal. Therefore whatever service they pay to conservative principles is simply the minimum needed to keep conservatives happy and thereby keep their votes.
This should not surprise anyone: the GOP, after all, is the party of Lincoln, the party that in the nineteenth century stood for the expansion of government, and the expansion of federal government in particular. The modern GOP has simply returned to its ultimate roots. Nor, considering that current GOP President has added two whole layers of Federal government where Federal government was not before (in the form of Medicare Part D and the No Child Gets Ahead Act), and stitched together a vast swathe of federal bureaucracy in the form of the Department of Homeland Security, acted as if the concept of civil liberties is the wicked design of some traitorous mole, and brought the theory of the unitary executive to its fullest reach (at least, one can’t imagine how it could be expanded further), should we be astonished that the Republican who will be campaigning to succeed him wants to “improve” on all that
So what’s a poor conservative to do? Express him/herself as often and loudly as possible, and persuade as many people as possible, is the only real option: but recognize that conservative principles will never have a hope of success unless we make our aim not lowering some taxes, but getting rid of all taxes; unless we make our goal not cutting back some government programs and spending, but getting rid of government programs and spending in toto. This being the real world, it’s impossible to have a hundred percent success, but without drastic cuts the politicians will still be attracted–and it’s the politicians we have to get rid of.
(If the reference to the Passover Haggada seems impossibly contrived –scroll down to the grey block that begins “Rabbi Yosi the Galilean”– I’m sorry. I’m in that sort of mood today, that’s all.)
Tags: GOP, libertarianism, politics
May 19, 2008 at 12:44 am |
Well-stated Sir. The reason I was a Republican so long was they were closer to these ideals than Democrats (by far!). When they completely abandoned the ideals in their own self-interest, they lost a lot of folks like me. A lot of libertarian (I still don’t really understand what people mean when they say “big L” or “little l”) principles make sense. If only there weren’t so many crazies attached to the party itself, I would consider that party for affiliation.
May 19, 2008 at 12:46 am |
Hmmm…. smiley/wink was completely unintended, yet seems appropriate somehow.
May 19, 2008 at 12:46 am |
[...] Jim Casarjian-Perry wrote an interesting post today onHere’s a quick excerptEW1 has a post recording the wrath, indignation and trouble rampant among conservative blogs, which perforce may bring a discharge of evil messengers on the GOP. Read his post and follow his links for a sample. To which the libertarian in me is tempted to respond, “You get what you paid for.” The problem with the GOP is that it is composed, at the organizational level, by politicians. And to a politicians what matters is not principles but votes and campaign contributions. The blogosphere recognizes this, if dimly, when it consumes itself with discussions of the best way that conservative votes, or non-votes, and conservative campaign contributions, or non-contributions, can be used to force the GOP back to conservative principles. But their problem is that the politicians are not interested in the principles. In fact, adhering to the principles means the politicians will, in many cases, have to act against their [...] [...]
May 19, 2008 at 3:32 am |
Thank you, sir. Upper case L v lower case l is really simple. I (and you, I rather suspect) are lower case l. To become an upper case L, one joins the Libertarian Party. I have no great inner need to confirm my capitalism with a capital letter.
And there are a bunch of crazies attached. Not only the obvious ones, but some people who have taken great offense at the possibility that Bob Barr, a person of prominence and with actual political credibility, might become the presidential nominee. They seem to think the LP should be the world’s only political party whose express purpose is NOT to elect candidates.
However, I will probably vote for LP in November, unless the nominee turns out to be a Truther. Then I won’t vote at all.
Or maybe I will write in Ron Paul. Que sera sera.
May 19, 2008 at 4:42 am |
I suspect your suspicion is suspiciously accurate.
Thanks for explaining the difference. I’ve asked before when others brought it up and nobody ever answered (not sure why). It seems like a lot of people who call themselves (big L) Libertarians espouse what amounts to anarchy. They talk as if any restrictions on them are inappropriate because it “limits” their freedom.
May 19, 2008 at 4:05 pm |
Unfortunately true. And as shown conclusively by Parkinson, government in a democracy grows at a compound rate of ~5.85%, no matter who gets elected!
Only cure for it is revolution, of course.
Stash, having been a big L for many years, I can say that the little l platform has much to recommend it. Two major drawbacks are, as far as I am concerned, that the party does attract a number of rather ungrounded idealists (for many years, the perennial LPO candidate for Governor in Oregon was Dr. Fred Oerther~Dr. Fred’s platform mainly consisted of legalizing marijuana); and secondly that libertarian idealists prescribe isolationism as a viable foreign policy (a position that I think you are all too intimately aware isn’t particularly workable in the face of a religious ideology committed to world conquest, a totally different religious concept as compared to other Occidental religious concepts like tikkun olam, for example).