Rosett: Try liberty as a platform

posted at 2:50 pm on November 6, 2008 by Ed Morrissey

Claudia Rosett has a suggestion for Republicans looking to reorganize themselves and their message: liberty.  Rosett notices that no one talked about it during the 2008 campaign, and wonders when Republicans stopped making it central to their platform:

With more than 63 million votes, President-elect Barack Obama–eloquent, young and bankrolled to the gunwales–has won the White House. That still leaves more than 55 million Americans who voted for the aging, outspent warrior, John McCain.

What were those McCain supporters voting for? Rather than reverting to the zillion polls of recent months, which centered on the platforms put forward by the candidates, I’ll hazard a guess–based on what was missing from this campaign, and seems to have all but vanished from the main stage of American politics.

That would be the straightforward love and defense of individual liberty, with its attendant freedom to take risks, and responsibility for the results. And here I stress individual. Not the chant of the crowd, but that basic American passion for individual life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Joe the Plumber, icon that he became, was not ultimately all about marginal tax brackets worked out to the umpteenth decimal point. He was a symbol of the broad principle that America thrives when its citizens are free to chart their own lives under a government more focused on defending their liberty and private property than encroaching on it in the name of redistributive state-administered “justice.”

Rosett says that she doubts that many of the 56 million voters who supported McCain did so on the basis of his health care plan, as substantive as it might be.  Nor did they flock to the GOP because of the Lexington Project, even though it was the far superior energy policy.  They did so because of the echo of Republican values, echoes that were never met with a new call to liberty, at least not until a plumber in Ohio raised the basic question of values and philosophy.

Ronald Reagan could speak to these values, as both a politician and a philosopher.  The Republican Party needs to find someone who can do the same.  Policies are important, but they should fit the values and principles of a party dedicated to individual liberty, and not the other way around.  The alternative, Rosett says, is to “turn on each other and look for ways to climb back onto the gravy train,” and it appears some Republicans have already found ways to do that.

We could do worse than to listen to Claudia Rosett.  We have work to do, and we need to start now if we expect to have anything more to say in 2010 than promote a diluted form of redistributionism.

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

All I’m saying is that it’s wrong to use religious law as the basis for political law. Often, they’ll overlap, but depending on the religion, theocratic law will encroach on at least some freedoms guaranteed by the bill of rights. Because our government is forbidden from making any law that respects the establishment of religion (note that a particular domination is not specified), it’s unconstitutional to base our policies on religious tenants.

That’s why I think it’s foolish for us to waste our time concerning government with things like gay marriage if religious ideals are the inspiration for such concern. Sure, the majority of Americans believe the institution should be restricted to one man and one woman, but most of their beliefs are rooted in their faith. A majority opinion does not make an issue politically just, and a political opinion defended by religion but not reason is invalid.

Sign of the Dollar on November 6, 2008 at 10:15 PM

There have been some excellent ideas on this
thread. Unfortunately, though liberty is the
foundational idea undergirding the history and
success of the USA, it is not prized by enough
people nowadays as demonstrated by Obama voters.

Liberty has been denigrated by the leftist
majority in public education and universities
as well as the chattering classes. American
history has been taught as something shameful.
Individualism is described in negative terms
such as “cowboy mentality” (the rugged gumption
that built this nation) while the group mentality
of socialism is praised and inculcated in our
children from kindergarten on.

As a result, there is a large part of the
electorate that is willing to give up what
they’ve been taught is worthless or selfish,
i.e. individual liberty for community
responsibility. One group wants to be looked
after and another group, mostly white liberals
see themselves as benevolent nannies. The
first is afraid of individual liberty which
brings with it hard work and responsibility
and the nanny despises liberty for making it
harder to herd people into the narrow and rigid
channels of allowable thought (political
correctness).

Liberty needs to be resold and made attractive.
Buford’s idea of empowering the electorate by
believing and acting as a servant of the people
instead of their boss deserves attention.

tarkus on November 7, 2008 at 1:07 AM

It’s not a fair point at all. You seem to be confusing “free will” with “no consequences”. Freedom doesn’t mean you can do whatever the heck you want and nothing bad ever comes of it. Perhaps that’s something we’ll all remember over the next four years.

Jimmie on November 6, 2008 at 9:52 PM

Modernists do not beleive in conditional love. Look at the financial bailout – do wrong, no penalty. The beauty of life is the fact that it is an adventure. It would be no fun or adventure if you placed a wager on a sporting event and did not receive a reward for winning it – or paying off if losing. Don’t worry, there will be a final payout or reward and it will be eternal. If anything, that is what Christianity brings to the table. This age ignores that at its own peril.

Fuquay Steve on November 7, 2008 at 7:32 AM

Comment pages: 1 2