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 Next »
I voted for McCain because he is white.
Sounds pretty stupid huh?
I voted for less government, lower taxes, and for a person that actually has experience, to lead our country. I voted against lies, deception and secrets.
cannonball on November 6, 2008 at 2:55 PM
People have to realize that they have lost their liberty. And since Bush is the “evil dictator”, and loss of liberty, if they recognized it, would be his fault.
After these 4 years (like Carter), they will understand what “loss of liberty” means.
We can discuss it, but it will be a reality in the next few years.
right2bright on November 6, 2008 at 2:55 PM
Well, George W. Bush talked alot about liberty. Unfortunately, he wasn’t talking about the citizens of his own country.
BigD on November 6, 2008 at 2:58 PM
YES – Liberty as a platform is exactly what I’m going to package together into a GOP-pitch tonight. I’m calling it the “Freedom Agenda.”
Glad to see other conservatives are thinking along the same lines.
Tacitus_SGL on November 6, 2008 at 2:58 PM
This strange quote from Medvedev about our “partners, the new American administration.” Does anyone think that odd? What is Medvedev trying to say. Are we partners with Communists now?
Wouldn’t surprise me. Good ole Soros. He hates this country. Loves Russia tho.
eaglesdontflock on November 6, 2008 at 2:58 PM
Republicans can’t run on liberty when they spend careers in Washington trying to strangle it.
Sheerq on November 6, 2008 at 2:59 PM
Liberty, as opposed to Obamunism.
Akzed on November 6, 2008 at 2:59 PM
They should try this:
amerpundit on November 6, 2008 at 3:00 PM
Smells like libertarianism. Is that what she means?
Y-not on November 6, 2008 at 3:00 PM
Claudia was on Hugh Hewitt yesterday and said as a country we have gone from “Give me liberty or give me death!” to “Yes we can!” She said can you imagine the founding fathers sitting around saying “Yes we can!” ?
Priceless.
Mr_Magoo on November 6, 2008 at 3:00 PM
Freedom is not only a gift, but also a summons to personal responsibility.
– Pope Benedict XVI,
I luv that quote.
Irenaeus on November 6, 2008 at 3:00 PM
It would be nice if Republicans rebranded themselves as the party of liberty, but how is that possible as long as the GOP insists on being the party of Christian morality? God and liberty are incapatible, because religion is fundamentally about subjugation to authority.
As long as the GOP is viewed as the party that pushes God into the public square, it’s going to have a hard time competing for more educated, affluent voters.
Enrique on November 6, 2008 at 3:01 PM
Justice is for lawyers. Liberty is for all.
Connie on November 6, 2008 at 3:01 PM
I kind of regret voting for McCain now. I didn’t vote for him, I voted for Anybody but Obama. I was the very thing I criticized Dems for in 04.
We can’t do that anymore. We can’t be like they are. We have to fight like men, not like children.
No more RINOs! We need to purge this blight from our ranks and do it now!
Pcoop on November 6, 2008 at 3:01 PM
I love that man.
Connie on November 6, 2008 at 3:02 PM
The Founding Fathers did just fine talking about their “firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence” and how people were “endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights” while also talking about liberty.
amerpundit on November 6, 2008 at 3:03 PM
The concept of liberty that Rosett speaks of is an abstract concept in modern (or post-modern?) America.
Liberty to most people is free digital music and easy access to pr0n.
“Give me iTUNES or give me DEATH!”
robblefarian on November 6, 2008 at 3:03 PM
So let me get this straight, genius: Christendom is less free than the USSR, Cuba, Red China, N. Korea, etc? What’s your problem, gay marriage got voted down?
Akzed on November 6, 2008 at 3:03 PM
There might be a role for government when we stumble and fall, though I prefer to get back up on my feet by myself, but the government should not be putting us in wheelchairs going in whatever direction it wants. Government is a tool we use to secure our inherent rights, not a nanny to tell when to brush our teeth and when to go to bed.
rbj on November 6, 2008 at 3:04 PM
“Incapatible?” I’m guessing you’re not one of the educated voters.
BigD on November 6, 2008 at 3:04 PM
Haw about a new LIBERTY PARTY !!!!
stenwin77 on November 6, 2008 at 3:05 PM
How about Liberty Overground? (to contrast with the vile Democratic Underground folk)
Less on November 6, 2008 at 3:05 PM
Liberty is a nice idea. The trouble is when people get too much of it, like when banks lose all controls and take the economy down right before a crucial election.
indythinker on November 6, 2008 at 3:05 PM
“If we ever forget that we are One Nation Under God, then we will be a Nation gone under.”
–Ronald Reagan
amerpundit on November 6, 2008 at 3:06 PM
Question For Enrique:
Are laws based on an understanding of morality?
tgibson1962 on November 6, 2008 at 3:06 PM
Creating a new party is a great concept but never works. The Libertarian Party is probably the most famous third-party and got, what, 1% in the election? They have little influence and no shot at controlling a branch of government.
amerpundit on November 6, 2008 at 3:07 PM
I don’t think I saw Presidente Barry talk once about freedom.
You think he watches Braveheart and gets physically ill?
benrand on November 6, 2008 at 3:08 PM
I’m not biblical scholar, nor “practicing” Christian but, um…I believe Christianity was a REBELLION AGAINST authority, no? Chris was a bit of a radical, wouldn’t you say?
robblefarian on November 6, 2008 at 3:09 PM
Freedom is a better word then liberty…liberty sounds so 1776
liberrocky on November 6, 2008 at 3:10 PM
Christ, not CHRIS. Sorry, big guy…
robblefarian on November 6, 2008 at 3:10 PM
Only in a theocracy.
Yeah, that didn’t work very well for Reagan did it. I mean he barely managed to squeak by. I’m sure no educated people ever voted for him.
Oldnuke on November 6, 2008 at 3:10 PM
A correct understanding of religion in Judeo-Christian thought holds that God made man as free will agents with the power to choose their own destiny. What are often referred to as ‘rules’ such as the Commandments are not articles of subjugation but pretty good guidelines on how humans should treat each other and form societies.
Liberty and religion are symbiotic as each tends to strengthen the other so long as they both understand the Golden Rule of doing unto others as you would do to yourself.
JonPrichard on November 6, 2008 at 3:11 PM
You admit you know nothing about God or Christianity. Thanks.
AubieJon on November 6, 2008 at 3:11 PM
It seems to me that if another new party is to be created, that is to be a force for reckoning, it would require events of a scale greater than the adherents of that movement itself, which is to say, forces from the outside, beyond the control of an individual or group. Those with such aspirations need to examine our history, to the last time a political party emerged that was taken seriously enough that it prevailed.
I believe that would have been the Republicans in the 1860 election, though I could be wrong.
manwithblackhat on November 6, 2008 at 3:12 PM
Liberty is a nice idea. The trouble is when people get too much of it, like when banks lose all controls and take the economy down right before a crucial election.
indythinker on November 6, 2008 at 3:05 PM
The banks lost their liberty when they took FED money, then were held to FED standards.
Standards that noone would risk there own money to.
Sonosam on November 6, 2008 at 3:12 PM
That was sarcasm, right?
Didn’t he win by a landslide in 1980? If he did, it may have been because he didn’t aim for the middle of the party, but remained true to himself, and sure of himself, and that which he believed. That is the part of his legacy worth remembering in 2008 and beyond. Let’s not hear another word about the GOP as “the big tent.” That didn’t work in 1980. It sure as hell didn’t work in 2008.
So, who still thinks it’ll work in 2010 or 2012?
manwithblackhat on November 6, 2008 at 3:14 PM
I don’t think people, in general, understand that if you are on the government teat you are a slave. That’s whether you are an individual or a corporation. If you exist on government handouts you are a slave. “Please master, throw me a crumb.”
Oldnuke on November 6, 2008 at 3:16 PM
Its incredible to me how blindly ignorant people can be.
The whole dem party got a pass while they concieved, manufactured and blew it up when needed.
the pukes shouldnt get a pass for letting it happen but the criminals who engineered this ponzi scheme are by and large lefties.
Its amazing to me because so many people with degrees, who were working inside this bomb must have known that printing money and giving it away can only last so long.
Now, the solution is to put it in the FEDs hands more.
Unbelievable.
Sonosam on November 6, 2008 at 3:17 PM
finding a politician that can play the game of politics and understands the difference between Liberty and Freedom, and can articulate those beleifs to people is hard commodity to find these days.
Fred Thompson could do it, but he’s too old. Hopefully Palin can do it, she lives it, hoepfully she can articulate it. One problem is those that think the Patriot Act and National Security related stuff are ‘unconstitutional’ and a violation of our Liberty. Its not exactly true, and explaining that to the ACLU types is a tall order
jp on November 6, 2008 at 3:19 PM
What’s your problem, gay marriage got voted down?
Akzed on November 6, 2008 at 3:03 PM
__________________________________________
hardly a Christian comment
Sheerq on November 6, 2008 at 3:20 PM
Sorry I didn’t think the tag was really necessary in that reply. And yes he won in a landslide by being a true conservative and standing his ground not “Reaching across the aisle.” I’m sick of moderates and RINOs and I’m with you “Hell with the big tent if you’re not conservative get out of my yard.”
Oldnuke on November 6, 2008 at 3:20 PM
Yes – I’ll absolutely vote for that.
beatcanvas on November 6, 2008 at 3:20 PM
Ok let’s vote for liberty. Let’s defend life and let’s make sure people can have a pathway to happiness.
therefore liberty means just that liberty from gov. You don’t want to wear a seatbelt fine. That’s liberty. You don’t want you child to wear a helmet fine that’s liberty. You want to smoke in your house outside in the air fine liberty.
Liberty can square the circle with the social cons alsio. Liberty to procatice religion anywhere at anytime. Want to say a prayer in school fine.
Abortion no. Messes up the life issue/ So we run on Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. that the gov has unfairly usurped power over the last 70 years.
This would also mean less gov, less taxes, less laws.
Get rid of the drug war it isn’t working. Go after the drug dealers and leave the users alone. target those that prey on child. leave the joint smoker alone. Use this thing called education. educate peopl why drugs are bad and then let them make their own choice.
Liberty. Freedom. Make Braveheart required movie in grade school.
I can get down with that.
It has the added effect of being the 180degree oppisite of what Obama is peddling.
Every bill every law should be looked out with an eye towrads liberty.
unseen on November 6, 2008 at 3:21 PM
that applies to religions other than Christianity. True Christianity is radically libertarian at its core, libertarian with a moral base that is.
jp on November 6, 2008 at 3:21 PM
there’s a reason Evangelical Christians are Republicans and into Small/Limited Govt. Its theological
jp on November 6, 2008 at 3:22 PM
You must be one of them unedumicated Christians Enricky was talkin’ ’bout. Either that, or a liberal.
kirkill on November 6, 2008 at 3:22 PM
You are a lost case if you think the banking failure had to do with “liberty”.
nottakingsides on November 6, 2008 at 3:23 PM
Liberty is dependent on a moral base and the Christian Family unit. For example, respect of Property Rights has to be taught.
secular libertariansim has alot of internal contradictions within it.
jp on November 6, 2008 at 3:23 PM
Here’s how I think we need to address the people. We’ve got to make personal responsibility and individual accountability the issue without making it sound like a burden or the province of the few who are wealthy and extremely successful.
I do not believe that the majority of Americans like being told by the Democrats and their policies that the American people are too stupid, too incompetent, and generally too childlike to take care of themselves! These liberal politicians aren’t saying it implicitely, of course, but what else could they mean by making massive, involuntary entitlement programs the focus of their domestic policy?
There is already a safety net (public and private) for the very small percentage of the population that is – to varying degrees – actually unable to fully take care of themselves and their families’ essential needs. Everyone knows this already because pretty much anyone who can’t survive without government intervention is already enrolled in these programs!
We should let the Obamas of the world go around the country telling everyone how pathetic their judgement is and how woefully inept they are. Then we’ll go in afterward and remind them that they are free, capable human beings who don’t need a damn messiah figure because to fix nonexistant problems with their lives.
That, and the constant reminder of the need for a strong, well-funded national defense, needs to be our core message. We’ll let them keep as much of what they earn as is financially possible while making sure they are safe from external threats. We’ll trust them to take care of their own personal business, and we won’t butt in and pronounce moral judgements on any legal activities.
Sign of the Dollar on November 6, 2008 at 3:25 PM
That’s if for you. Report to the Death Valley Center for Re-education at 0900 February 1, 2009. Pack light, bring your own water.
Oldnuke on November 6, 2008 at 3:25 PM
People voted for Obama with their emotions, and these emotions are unlikely to cool, being fanned in the press, the schools, the blogosphere, etc.
These people are not open to a message of Liberty. We’re in the Gimme Age. Let’s face it: We are going to be a minority until liberty resonates again. At that time, unfortunately, Staying Alive will probably be the top priority.
Claudia’s exactly correct. It just remains to be seen how far she is ahead of her time.
RushBaby on November 6, 2008 at 3:26 PM
McCain was, essentially, a Washington hack. His McCain-Feingold was a Liberty- and Freedom-killer, and he was in no position to talk about Free Speech after that disaster.
To me, W will always be tainted for signing that piece of crap legislation, even though he admitted that it was “unconstitutional”. He did it just to placate John McCain.
Many of us voted for the McCain ticket while we still hated his guts for his string of bad legislation. I believe that he will now be fully Hagelesque to the ruling Obamacons, and continue to kick us in the ass. His team is now trying to savage Palin, as if she was the problem with his half-assed campaign. What a nasty little old bastard..
TexasJew on November 6, 2008 at 3:26 PM
God and liberty are incapatible, because religion is fundamentally about subjugation to authority.
Enrique on November 6, 2008 at 3:01 PM
christian relgion is about free will. Only with liberty can you choose to follow the Lord. i think your thinking about the muslim moon god.
unseen on November 6, 2008 at 3:26 PM
Less than that in this election.
D Barack Obama 53% 64,364,184
R John McCain 46% 56,701,762
I Ralph Nader 1% 663,861
LB Bob Barr 0% 492,057
I keep waiting to see if the Libertarians will get it together, but they never do. They’re too extreme for my taste.
Y-not on November 6, 2008 at 3:27 PM
That’s if for you. Report to the Death Valley Center for Re-education at 0900 February 1, 2009. Pack light, bring your own water.
Oldnuke on November 6, 2008 at 3:25 PM
Did they revamp the drive in movie place again.
Wolverines!
unseen on November 6, 2008 at 3:27 PM
“Claudia Rosett has a suggestion for Republicans looking to reorganize themselves and their message: liberty. ”
AMEN!
One of the symptoms (I believe) of how the Republican party has lost it’s way is demonstrated by the alarming trend of those of libertarian bent to vote with the Democrats! The Republican party should be their natural haven! Limited government, individual freedom valued (instead of a version of collectivism), interpretation of the constitution based on historical intent, right to keep and bear arms as an individual freedom, etc.
I think it means something significant (what exactly?) that instead either the Democrats (in spite of fascist leanings?) or Libertarians have attracted the majority of this political demographic. Why??!!??
rspock on November 6, 2008 at 3:29 PM
Yup! I’ve never forgiven him for his gang of 14 deal when he and his sycophants basically handed control of the Senate to the liberals.
Oldnuke on November 6, 2008 at 3:30 PM
WTF is this “under a government” shit?
We don’t elect rulers or kings in this country. We elect servants.
Citizens should remain at liberty to chart their own lives without molestation by those that serve them.
Jesus. No wonder we’re hip-deep in the shit when supposedly ‘smart’ people don’t have the first clue about the country they’re living in.
LimeyGeek on November 6, 2008 at 3:32 PM
Talk to y’all later after I stop foaming at the mouth. I gotta go clean one of my guns and feed my border collie.
Oldnuke on November 6, 2008 at 3:32 PM
Are you kidding me? You’ve just expressed the Christian message… backwards. Christians are free in Christ, because His grace has removed the bondage of sin.
Christianity and Liberty go hand in hand… as long as responsibility (also a Christian theme) is assumed.
When you say that we subject ourselves to God, it is true to a degree… BUT IT IS VOLUNTARY.
And why shouldn’t religion be in the public square? Why shouldn’t we desire more integrity and responsibility in our culture? Why shouldn’t we have freedom of religion and freedom of speech?
You do realize in your post that you were arguing AGAINST our 1st Amendment rights contained in our Constitution…
dominigan on November 6, 2008 at 3:34 PM
“Give me iTUNES or give me PROMISES of iTUNES”
LimeyGeek on November 6, 2008 at 3:35 PM
I totally agree that liberty should be our platform, and was thinking the very thing myself. This Orwellian idea of forced volunteerism, a concept promoted by Rahm Emanuel, is the opposite of liberty and must be what Obama has in mind with his National Civilian Defense Corps:
Universal Citizen Service
Just say no!
Buy Danish on November 6, 2008 at 3:36 PM
People have gotten too used to the idea of “getting elected into power”, instead of “elected into service”.
*eats*
Grue in the Attic on November 6, 2008 at 3:44 PM
Hey, you know the only candidate of the four who consistently mentioned freedom? Palin, in the VP debate and some of her speeches. Freedom and personal responsibility. How refreshing.
SAZMD on November 6, 2008 at 3:47 PM
I don’t think anyone care but the DOw lost 450pts and still dropping but lets wait and see if this is really Obama’s fault. the right are blind to this. Ed and Allah and Ace can not see the goldmine in this.. Oh well. No biggy historic market postelections always come around.
unseen on November 6, 2008 at 3:52 PM
Freedom and personal reponsability is the only way to live.
pukara61 on November 6, 2008 at 3:56 PM
I don’t really want to get too much into a religious debate here because the founding fathers rightfully argued that our politics should not be religiously sanctioned. The constant religious rhetoric coming from the lips of all politicians (but especially the Republicans, since it is more vocally and frequently tied to their legislative decisions) is a bit of an annoyance to me.
With that said, I think it’s a fair point to remind the Christians that their God may say he offers free will, but in the next breath he warns you of the eternal punishment you’ll suffer if you violate his rules. That’s like saying we’re free to refuse to pay our taxes in the USA. Sure, we can avoid paying the IRS, but if they catch us they’ll throw us in jail for it!
Sign of the Dollar on November 6, 2008 at 3:56 PM
Free will is about the choice. Choose rightly and be rewarded, choose wrongly and be punished. All actions have consequences, we are simply allowed to choose them… and in this case we even have the added benefit of KNOWING IN ADVANCE what the result of our choices will be, there’s no mystery or anxious waiting.
*eats*
Grue in the Attic on November 6, 2008 at 4:06 PM
I’ve been giving these things a lot of thought and I think I know one of the big ways Sarah Palin connected with the voters and John McCain didn’t. You will recall that Sarah kept mentioning about how she hoped we would “hire” them to work for us. You didn’t have any other candidate saying this, and I think that not one of the candidates in any of the presidential primaries understood what she was actually saying. She came across as believing that we were electing people to work for us, and that the people we the boss, while ALL the other candidates seem to believe that we were voting for someone to be our boss. This is a fundamental difference in how people view government.
Let’s consider the way money was collected from the oil companies in Alaska. You heard this referred to as a “tax” multiple times by the talking heads and pundits. It was even referred to as a “Wind Fall Profits Tax” by some trying to make a political point. Frankly this isn’t even a tax. The State of Alaska owns the oil in the ground. The oil companies buy this oil from the state and either resell it of refine it themselves and sell the end products. The pricing structure is such that when the price of oil increases the oil companies have to pay the State of Alaska more for the state’s oil. This seems fair, but it is hardly a tax. Now look at what happened to the oil money. Under Sarah Palin it was distributed to the people of Alaska, not placed in the general fund. Why? It seems Sarah Palin considers the State of Alaska to mean the people of Alaska and the government of the State of Alaska as the employee of the people. Thus this oil that is being sold belongs to the people, not the government, and thus when it is sold the people, not the government should reap the benefits.
A really good example of this difference in thought is the Kello case. If the government “owns” everything, it is easy to justify taking property from one landowner and giving it to another. You wouldn’t dare take the land of your “boss” though. Even the Supreme Court seems to be confused who is supposed to work for whom.
Sarah Palin’s belief seems to be unique these days among politicians. Everyone else that ran national office (House, Senate, or President) that I know of, both Democrat and Republican, acts like the government “owns” everything and that we all work for them. Now if we work for the government the redistribution of wealth is easily justified as it isn’t really our wealth that is being redistributed, but the governments. Having national health care packages (either Obama’s or McCain’s) is easily justified, since as our employer they get a say so in their employee’s benefits. You can go on and on with all the major parties’ platforms with this logic. Because somewhere along the way Washington politicians have forgotten that they work for us, not the other way around. The people in Washington seem to think we are voting on who we want our boss to be, not selecting who we want to be our employee. There is a huge difference in attitude and one that is appreciated by the American people. Any presidential candidate that can demonstrate to the American people that they really consider themselves to be the employee, not the boss, will win in a landslide.
Buford on November 6, 2008 at 4:15 PM
If that’s the definition of libertarianism count me in on it.
Dark-Star on November 6, 2008 at 4:30 PM
I think even a stronger theme as a platform would have been “personal accountability”. It represents the antithesis to “Big Brother” government. But it also works on the psyche of the undecided voter (much like “liberty”).
When it is put in stark terms, not many people want to believe they are not personally accoutable. Dems and Libs make it fuzzy, so that they feel like they earned the “tax rebate” from taxes paid by others. I think a theme of personal accountability would help cure this myopia.
connertown on November 6, 2008 at 4:31 PM
Thank you so much for posting this. That is all I have to say.
Kamikaze on November 6, 2008 at 4:33 PM
Enrique
Religion can actually help liberty because it encourages people not to immanentize the eschaton. All people imagine a heaven, whether they are traditionally religious or not (c.f. John Lennon’s Imagine, wherein he imagines heaven on Earth but refuses to call it that). Religious people realize that this is a fallen world and focus their eschatological concerns on a perhaps imaginary resurrection. Secular people, not believing in an afterlife, attack liberty in an effort to create heaven on Earth. And not believing in a Dies Ire they feel no moral or ethical boundaries on the tactics employed to realize their vision. This makes them far more dangerous than than traditional religious people. The Inquisition killed 7,000 people during its 100 year run. The Communists killed 22,000 in a single execution spree in the Katyn forest.
Religious Inquisition: 7000 executions
Secular National Socialism: 12,000,000 executions
Secular International Socialism: 100,000,000 executions and slave labor deaths
As a matter of history, religious people (e.g. Jews in Nazi Germany) have more to fear from secular people than vice versa. Even radical Islam is a piker compared to State religion, although if they get the atom bomb this idea might have to be revised.
shazbat on November 6, 2008 at 4:36 PM
At its heart, yes, this is what libertariansim is all about. Unfortunately, it too has become cluttered with dialtone IQs squabbling over minutia, to the point where many regard libertarianism as some quirky dorky group like the Peoples’ Front of Judea.
LimeyGeek on November 6, 2008 at 4:38 PM
connertown,
the majority voted to do away with personal accountability in exchange for a turn at the gubmint teet.
thomasaur on November 6, 2008 at 4:38 PM
That’s funny. Because there was a Republican candidate that campaigned on Liberty. But he was shunned as a crank, remember? I wonder, if Ron Paul would have been a hawk on Iraq would we be having this pity party now?
wtaft on November 6, 2008 at 4:39 PM
I remember his indefensible ramblings about gold standards and illegal wars and isolationism. He defined himself as a crank.
Still, I salute him for bringing libertarianism further into the general awareness than anyone has managed before.
LimeyGeek on November 6, 2008 at 4:42 PM
wtaft,
Ron Paul didn’t win the nomination of the party he was affiliated with so get over it.
thomasaur on November 6, 2008 at 4:42 PM
Dark-Star on November 6, 2008 at 4:30 PM
Dunno how I messed that up….
LimeyGeek on November 6, 2008 at 4:43 PM
I’m game.
Kamikaze on November 6, 2008 at 4:44 PM
Enrique,
I think you have a fundamental lack of understanding of the American theory of natural rights. We have individual liberty in this country because our freedom pre-exists and transcends the state. When we say that “all men are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights,” that means that our rights cannot be violated by the state because they come from a higher authority. It doesn’t matter whether that’s the Christian God or not. Our rights do not devolve from the State. We answer for ourselves to our own God and to no man. It is because our rights come from God and not our government that we have more individual liberties than any other country on earth.
patriette on November 6, 2008 at 4:45 PM
thomasour, thanks for your vitriol, I was simply asking a rhetorical question. i can’t imagine why we don’t attract more people…
wtaft on November 6, 2008 at 4:48 PM
Limey, in his defense he also said the economy was about to collapse, and it did. I’m playing devils advocate here, lest I get provoke another beat down from thomasour.
McCain also said he would balance the budget in the first year. That should have made your milk shoot out of your nose.
wtaft on November 6, 2008 at 4:51 PM
wtaft,
*bows in humility*
thomasaur on November 6, 2008 at 4:53 PM
World history was relying on the US to carry the torch of freedom and liberty for all mankind. This week, our own citizens voluntarily gave up that future for all of our children, for the price of a few pieces of gold…
Our citizens don’t deserve a reprieve, and I’m sad to think that I will live to see our great country fall.
Geministorm on November 6, 2008 at 5:02 PM
+1
I was frustrated by the questions at the debates.
My question would have been, “Describe 5 ways you would expand my freedom.”
Instead, the questions were mostly (paraphrased), “What will you give me, Santa Claus?”
__________
RJGatorEsq. on November 6, 2008 at 5:39 PM
Liberty is such an overarching theme that can be ours. It expands to our fundamental disagreements with the political left. Whereas they advocate for expanding government, we can argue it is an intrusion upon us.
Wealth redistribution is in violation of economic liberty.
The fairness doctrine is in fundamental violation of intellectual liberty. That should be our only statement on any plans to revise that plan. How does it look when dinosaur deniers
The war against terrorism is a struggle for all liberty. If defeated, we would lose all of our liberties.
It is in this hour that the Republican party must establish itself as the vanguards of liberty.
amazingmets on November 6, 2008 at 5:52 PM
But…. If the choice were really free, he wouldn’t tell you that the consequences for choosing differently than he wants you to are absolute
Anyway, political platforms must be separate from religious doctrine because – as Christ himself purportedly believed – they answer to different authorities.
Some of the freedoms already established in the US Constitution – if exercised fully (using your freedom of speech to blaspheme God, for example) would conflict with laws of plenty of popular religions.
To be successful, we have to be inclusive. I don’t mean superficially inclusive, like the Democrats, who seek to pigeonhole and bribe ethnic and cultural groups. Valuing freedom from excessive taxation and government regulation, protection from external threats and the preservation of the Constitution is inclusive of all Americans who are of any value in the first place.
Sign of the Dollar on November 6, 2008 at 5:53 PM
Irreverence is the champion of liberty and its only sure defense.
- Mark Twain
MB4 on November 6, 2008 at 5:53 PM
Excellent post
RushBaby on November 6, 2008 at 6:15 PM
Religion is indeed about subjugation; i.e. Islam, Hiduism, et al. You shouldn’t confuse religion with Christ-centered faith and a personal relationship with THE Christ, nor should you make the mistake of confusing liberty with license.
oldleprechaun on November 6, 2008 at 6:32 PM
Bravo! Rossett for President! Finally, someone actually says in a mainstream publication what Rand and the Objectivists have been saying for decades. To be a genuine alternative, you have to offer something actually different. Be the party of individual freedom! In the end, it’s the only thing that matters.
JDPerren on November 6, 2008 at 6:54 PM
Enrique on November 6, 2008 at 3:01 PM
You’re such a ridiculous tool. There are few, if any, demographic groups more zealously protective of individual liberty than religious voters.
Bugler on November 6, 2008 at 6:58 PM
How exactly do you envision that banks have too much liberty? FDIC, Federal Reserve, SEC, OFHEO, SPIC, FSLIC, etc., etc, etc. Banks can’t scratch their nose without some government edict making sure no one gets a nosebleed.
The problem was the fallout was socialized. That’s not liberty, that’s Fascism. The cause was too little liberty.
Study economics. Read Hazlitt’s Economics in One Lesson. Read Sowell’s Basic Economics. Read Rand’s Capitalism, The Unknown Ideal. Study the history of the Great Depression. Learn how the free market actually works and what happens when government interferes beyond the protections against fraud and theft. Don’t lay the blame at the doorstep of business when it was the government who caused the problem.
JDPerren on November 6, 2008 at 7:01 PM
I agree 100%. I remember a quote that summarizes the road ahead: ‘We shall do battle with his errors or bring a cure to his ignorance’ With the schools in the shape they are, it is going to be a long hard slog or a very painful cure (in terms of a deep and prolonged depression). If you do not beleive in prayer, I beg you to re-consider.
Fuquay Steve on November 6, 2008 at 7:52 PM
+1
And, in the hands of the Left, “liberty” becomes “anything goes.”
Republicans cannot run on “liberty” — most of us believe that government/society does have a role in regulating certain behaviors. The libertarians who are voting Dem are attracted to the “keep your laws off my body” mindset. Regular folks won’t understand what Republicans mean by “liberty.”
I think the party should run on some variant of “achievement” (aka the “American Dream”). The Joe Wurzelbacher story resonated because he was striving to achieve more (and didn’t want the government to take it away). Libs don’t “get it” because they think he should be know his place and be satisfied with government handouts. Sarah Palin is Reaganesque (obviously not Reagan) because of her optimism and belief in the potential of the individual.
Y-not on November 6, 2008 at 7:59 PM
THIS ^^^ is the basic principle that should guide the Conservative movement and the Republican Party. Individual liberty and responsibility is a concept that ce the umbrella for policies of limited government, low taxes for only those things that Government must necessairly do.
Red State State of Mind on November 6, 2008 at 9:04 PM
As long as the GOP is viewed as the party that pushes God into the public square, it’s going to have a hard time competing for more educated, affluent voters
Funny. So I guess you are saying the founding fathers were stupid, insipid ignorant men, because their religious feeling ran as deep as their education.
You are the ignorant one. You can’t even boast the sort of education those incredible men had. There is nothing you have to give the nation. Go join the democrats.
Noelie on November 6, 2008 at 9:40 PM
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
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »