Is either a fool or a liar, when it comes to libertarians. But then, straw men are always the first refuge of the political hack, as the president demonstrates on a daily basis.
[Update a while later]
Jeez, Santorum is almost as clueless of economics as Romney is:
“I’m not against the minimum wage,” Santorum remarked. “When the minimum wage drops below a certain level, it’s usually a floor of about 7 percent of wages at minimum wage, I’ve supported increasing it back it up to make sure it stays above that level so there is in fact a minimum wage.”
He should talk to Tom Sowell, since he doesn’t seem to understand what a devastating policy this is for young people, and black youth in particular.
Rick Santorum isn’t a fool or a liar. He was basing what he said off the things libertarians say all the time. Sure, they say they support some minimal government–but note that they never, ever find anything they actually support. The only time libertarians bring up minimal government is when they’re on the defensive.
It’s in the same bracket as Lawrence O’Donnell getting mad over the difference between socialism and communism. From a distance, there is little distinction. To put it differently, it’s like calling someone a liar for claiming pi=3.14159. It’s not technically true, but it’s a close enough approximation.
More to the point, however, since when have libertarians like Boortz ever done anything constructive for liberty? Ronald Reagan, a huge military spender and promoter of the Drug War, was responsible for the end of the Soviet Empire and the liberation of Eastern Europe. The NRA, a Beltway organization thick with members of Congress that promotes (wrongly, in my view) government spending on shooting ranges, was responsible for the revival of the 2nd Amendment right to arm oneself against tyrants and aggressors. In fact, Santorum himself was responsible for the welfare reform law in 1996 getting through the Senate.
Meanwhile, libertarians have given us Alan Greenspan and Tom Campbell. Fucking wow. Oh, and Neal Boortz, 90% of whose columns can be summed up in one sentence: “You don’t have a right to a job, you ungrateful fuck.”*
*Note that no one outside the far Left ever claims to actually have a “right” to a job. They do claim they have a right not to apologize to their former boss for not showing gratitude for his firing them, and a right to vote for candidates they think will make the jobs picture better than it is.
More to the point, however, since when have libertarians like Boortz ever done anything constructive for liberty? Ronald Reagan, a huge military spender and promoter of the Drug War, was responsible for the end of the Soviet Empire and the liberation of Eastern Europe.
You mean the same Ronald Reagan who said “libertarianism is the heart and soul of conservatism”?
Well, yes. Do you think the end of the Soviet Union and liberation of Eastern Europe was a trivial thing?
How does Abraham Lincoln fit in there? As far back as the constitutional conventions there has been a conflict between state’s rights and federalism. The key philosophical difference is the limit on government power – essentially the basis of libertarianism – with federalists rejecting any limits on their power. Lincoln was a Republican, yet there is no doubt which side of the debate he came down on. This division in the GOP didn’t go away with Reagan. Whereas the historical support of state’s rights by democrats went away almost completely with the civil war.
No, this is the L. Neil Smith fallacy, that coercion is only coercion when exercised by the Federal government. Libertarians (and since that word begins a sentence, let me be clear that I mean Party faithful, not believers in limited governments) are ignorant about Northern slavery and established state churches; if they weren’t, they might not be so enthused about the Articles of Confederation.
You’re arguing a completely different point. If one is a federalist, one cannot be a libertarian, wouldn’t you agree? If so, claiming that libertarianism is the core of the GOP is nonsense as so many republicans remain federalists.
If one is a federalist, one cannot be a libertarian, wouldn’t you agree?
Nonsense. It’s quite possible for a libertarianism to believe that Federalism is the system which will lead to the greatest liberty. That may possibly even be a correct belief.
You seem to be arguing for libertarianism as some sort of platonic ideal, rather than a political doctrine that exists in the real world. It simply isn’t practical to invade every state on the face of the Earth to overthrow their established churches and impose perfect libertarianism.
Reagan did say that, but he didn’t govern as a libertarian.
Just FYI: I think a generally libertarian society is a great thing. To me it’s like the line in The Lion, The Witch, and the Wardrobe that Narnia wasn’t a man’s country, but it was a country for a man to be king of. Conversely, the USA is a libertarian nation, ideally, but not one in which libertarians make good Presidents.
Perhaps you aren’t old enough to remember Reagan. I recall endless teeth gnashing about his deregulation, tax cuts, plans to eliminate entire Federal agencies and departments….
The fact that he was not successful in everything he set out to do, or did not set out to do everything he might have, is irrelevant unless you subscribe to the silly belief that libertarians are paragons of perfection
And no, it was not a trivial thing. That was my point. I thought that would be clear.
So, FDR and Carter and 1992 Bill Clinton are the ‘far left’?
Does improving the “Jobs Picture” mean paying artists to paint pictures for the White House?
Is “Libertarian” Alan Greenspan’s essential understanding of economics still “Libertarian” when it fails miserably to improve the ‘Jobs Picture’ post-2009 (QE, Stimulus)?
The purpose of the minimum wage is to delay the entry of youth into the job market so they can be indoctrinated for longer in the school system (including college). Same with the minimum working age. This has the (unintended?) effect of eliminating the economic motive for having children which dilutes the institution of the family and marriage.
From as young as 10 I had various odd jobs around the neighborhood that I did to earn money. This was a logical extension of my parents requiring me to do chores for an allowance. Like many others of my generation, I learnt the value of hard work directly. Although I never gave money back to my parents, they didn’t have to supply me with many goods that they otherwise would, along with many goods that they would have otherwise had to deny me.
And with that, let me end with a complaint against the damn parents who give the youth everything these days for no work. These children have grown up into the gimme generation.. thanks for burdening the rest of us with these little jerks.
The stock comeback for -any- conservative asked about the minimum wage should be:
“Well, it seems to be rampantly ignored in the media industry through the excessive use of unpaid interns. Frankly, I think they should be paid more than -zero-, but obviously they aren’t sufficiently valued by the companies of California to actually receive pay. There’s a name for this.”
+1
One could also note that the minimum wage is effectively zero – if one has no job at all.
To watch the CPAC 2012 speech of a politician who knows how destructive the minimum wage laws are:
NEWT GINGRICH CPAC 2012
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/video/newt-gingrich-full-speech-cpac-2012-15558504
Brilliant. Comprehensive. SPECIFIC plans — HOW TO restore the economy,
HOW TO restore our liberties ASAP. To understand the AMERICAN CAMPAIGN watch this speech.
BTW, how the hell did Romney win the CPAC straw poll?
Ron Paul didn’t buy as many tickets for his people this year as he has in the past?
Santorum didn’t but any?
Vote for none of the above.
When I was a student intern working for IBM in San Jose around ’80, I was paid, and more than the minimum wage. I think I was treated quite fairly.
I understand it’s fields like the media and law that want free labor. I know someone who had to PAY to intern at a radio station.
Santorum comes across as clueless, or worse, on a very great deal.
Ronald Reagan was right when he said, “I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism.”
Why is is that so many Republicans professed to believe is smaller government, reducing the role of government in our lives (and wallets!) and getting rid of corruption such as earmarks, until a couple of weeks ago? Now, I see so-called Republicans saying earmarks are okay because they are such a small percentage of spending. That’s the same line the left used in their defense. The fact is that earmarks are bad for the same reason cops taking bribes is bad; it’s not the amount, it’s the corruption. It sickens me to see the about-face some Republicans have done on this and other issues very recently.
And for what, Santorum? What use is he? He’s the kind of statist big government shill that we’ve been decrying for years. What exactly does he bring to the table in this election, save for offering Republicans the chance to become hypocrites?
And BTW, Santorum would make this election about social issues, and I guarantee the Democrats will be delighted to help him do so. They’ll do all they can to paint him that way, and he’ll help. Doing this in an election that’s about the economy is madness on many levels. There are a hell of a lot of Republicans and even more independents that will not vote for a fanatical social con, especially one like Santorum who has no redeeming features on the fiscal side. (his record is quite clear.)
One reason so many hate Obama is because he’s been injecting the government more and more into our lives. Running a candidate who is just as statist is a recipie for disaster. A lot of libertarian fiscal conservatives won’t vote for him, and independents to a huge degree won’t either. And like it or not, this election WILL be decided by independents.
I know I can’t vote for Santorum, not in the primaries, and not in November. I’m currently undecided as to whether I’d vote Obama or just stay home or go third party in November if Santorum is the nominee. Obama has one redeeming quality over Santorum; he’s limited to four more years. Santorum could go for eight.
If anyone had told me a month ago that I would consider voting for Obama under any circumstance whatsoever, I’d have declared them nuts. That’s how strongly I feel about the prospect of a Santorum nomination, and I know I’m not alone.
Just look at Santorum’s record and statements, now and in the past. They speak for themselves.
I don’t have a horse I’m backing in the primaries (I’m still undecided between Gingrich and Romney, neither of whom I much like, but I’ll be voting for one of them) so I’m not a “my candidate of the highway” guy. I’ll vote for and donate money to whomever the R’s nominate out of the current candidates, except Santorum.
“I’ll vote for and donate money to whomever the R’s nominate out of the current candidates, except Santorum.”
and yet others say much the same thing:
“I’ll vote for and donate money to whomever the R’s nominate out of the current candidates, except Romney”
And still others say:
“I’ll vote for and donate money to whomever the R’s nominate out of the current candidates, except Gingrich”
I’d say the base was pretty depressed. As also shown by the lack of voters in the primaries/caucii.
Guess who benefits from that?
AS for myself, I will heartily vote for any one of those three – whoever the GOP nominee is. I will then focus my time and money on winning the Congress for Conservatives. If we could get a Congress jealous of it’s powers and prerogatives, Obama would be stopped in his tracks.
I’m a libertarian (small L) on most things, so of course I find Santorum utterly unacceptable, especially after his comments saying that libertarians want NO government. He’s either a liar or an idiot, though in his case I suppose those are not mutually exlusive propositions.
I’ll be blunt, I don’t like anyone currently in the race. However, due to my odd mix of political positions, I’m used to it, and voting for the lessor of evils. I utterly despised McCain (for a lot of reasons, though amnesty looms largest) had for years, but I held my nose and voted for the SOB in 2008. I thought he’s be an awful president, just less awful than Obama.
I’m also a tea partier, one who worked hard in 2010 to help in any way I could. What motivated me? Getting the deficit under control by cutting government, reducing corruption, and reducing the role of government in our lives. I also well remember how the tea party forced the newly elected house to ban earmarks (a promise they were trying to back out of). That was a HUGE step.
I’d even vote for Ron Paul if he was the R nominee, and I detest Paul for foreign policy reasons (I think his is insane) and I also detest the notion he espouses that it’s okay for states but not the feds to stifle liberty. However, even though I would never vote for Paul in the primary, I’d hold my nose and vote for him in the general . I cannot say the same for Santorum, as things stand now. I think electing him would be a disaster for the party and the country, taking it in the wrong direction for many years. Better a defeat than that, because Obama would be gone in four years.
I will, of course, no matter the nominee, be working to help elect R’s to congress, and on election day I will be at the polls to vote, I’d just put “none of the above” for president if Santorum is the R nominee.
And BTW, I’m in Arizona, which is not a swing state. If Arizona is in play, the R nominee has already lost, so it’s not the same as if I lived in a swing state.
My vote does, however, count for more in the primary this time. The Arizona primary on Feb 28th looks like it will be important, and I’ll be voting. I could vote today via early voting if I wanted, but I haven’t made up my mind yet on whom to support. Right now, I’m leaning towards voting for whomever is leading the state poll close to election day (if it’s not Santorum) in order to do as much damage as I can to Santorum.
“The job of defining libertarianism for the purposes of polling falls to a group called American National Election Studies (ANSE).”
The membership is drawn entirely from the American Association of Dyslexic People (DAPA).
Newt Gingrich definitely talks the best talk. Romney and Santorum just shouldn’t even compete.
But is Newt really for real? There’s a lot of reason to think that he isn’t.
That leaves Ron Paul. I’ve personally ‘gotten over’ my problems with his foreign policy and other controversial positions (drug war) – in part because I’ve come to agree with much of it, having forced myself to really consider it all in the face of the alternatives – but also because I’ve thought about what a Paul presidency would mean.
Keep in mind, constitutionally, the President’s actions are directed by Congress. Congress sets national policy. Paul would not have the authority to shut down bases and alter our alliances – nor do I think he’d be willing to do so extraconstitutionally. Instead, a Paul Presidency would force Congress to both justify all of its choices – to include whatever wars and alliances we are taking part it – but also force Congress to actually find real leadership within itself to have actual policies.
As far as the Fed and spending are concerned, a Paul Presidency would be a constant force for accountability. The ticket would be worth it for the bully pulpit alone.
So, I don’t think there would be anything wrong with Ron Paul being President. It would probably be very helpful. Moreover, because of his libertarian perspective on social issues and war, he could appeal to a broad enough spectrum to probably win a general election.
The people who say there is something to fear from a Paul Presidency seem to be more afraid of ideas rather than policy. Their afraid they’ll lose the rhetorical war, and thereby their influence in media or politics, if Libertarianism is given an open microphone. That seems like a demagogic thing to say, but I really believe that both the Democratic and Republican parties rely on certain narratives to maintain a profitable status quo.