An open letter to GOP primary voters from a libertarian
Rick Santorum has consistently voted in favor of big government, budget-busting programs. He has slammed former Governor Mitt Romney (R-Mass.) for signing RomneyCare into law, but RomneyCare and ObamaCare are hardly the first examples of big government intervention in the health care market. Another recent example was the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003 establishing the Medicare Part D prescription drug benefit. While libertarians and limited government conservatives were busy arguing for the reduction of government health care entitlements, former President George W. Bush was busy expanding them — and Rick Santorum was happy to vote in favor of Medicare Part D along with other big government establishment Republicans in the U.S. Senate…
Santorum has also been a consistent opponent of individual liberty. Although some do not, many Republican primary voters may agree with Santorum’s proposals to amend the constitution to prohibit abortion and same-sex marriage. But what about birth control? In October 2011, Santorum went on the record about “the dangers of contraception in this country,” arguing that birth control is “a license to do things in a sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be.” These far outside the mainstream views may be excusable if they were just his personal opinions, but they’re not. Santorum told ABC News’ Jake Tapper late last year that he opposed Griswold v. Connecticut, the Supreme Court decision that overturned state bans on discussing birth control with and providing it to married couples. President Santorum would favor letting states dictate what legally married heterosexual couples can and can’t do in the privacy of their own bedrooms. How’s that for big government?
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: « Previous 1 2
The stakes are far too high to let ourselves be driven away from the polls. If Obama wins again and gets to replace just one of the constitutionalist SCOTUS justices, it’s game over with no hope of redemption.
Obama is violating the Constitution and individual liberties on a daily basis now with impunity. No matter how bad the Republican candidate sucks, he’s going to do far less harm than Obama over the next four years.
aero on February 10, 2012 at 3:07 AM
Actually, you can. When the government disintegrates into anarchy, there’ll be no more big-government social engineering programs to propagandize and legitimize and certify “gay” “marriages” so that takes care of that issue.
Also once the anarchy or civil war begins, it becomes much easier to hang abortionists in the public square.
So I see the downfall of civilization as a win-win on social issues.
joe_doufu on February 10, 2012 at 3:31 AM
No they were not.
Robert Winthrop, Speaker of the U. S. House, “Men, in a word, must necessarily be controlled either by a power within them or by a power without them; either by the Word of God or by the strong arm of man; either by the Bible or by the bayonet.”
Benjamin Rush, Signer of the Declaration of Independence “Without religion, I believe that learning does real mischief to the morals and principles of mankind.”
Benjamin Franklin, Signer of the Declaration of Independence “[O]nly a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters.”
Fisher Ames author of the final wording for the First Amendment wrote, “[Why] should not the Bible regain the place it once held as a school book? Its morals are pure, its examples captivating and noble. The reverence for the Sacred Book that is thus early impressed lasts long; and probably if not impressed in infancy, never takes firm hold of the mind.”
James Wilson, Signer of the Constitution; U. S. Supreme Court Justice, “Human law must rest its authority ultimately upon the authority of that law which is divine.”
Libertarians have shown far too often that their social liberalism matters more to them than their so-called fiscal conservatism. It is always the fiscal part that gives way when push comes to shove. The libertarians at Reason Magazine, the guy who wrote this letter and many others voted for the Marxist Obama. Their fiscal creds are complete and total BS. They are liberals and they vote accordingly and most conservatives do not take kindly to being told by pretend libertarians about who we must run to get them to consider the faint possibility of voting for a conservative, but more likely than not, voting for another Marxist anyway.
This open letter makes that very clear. A choice between Santorum (social conservative who helped push through welfare reform) and a Marxist and the fake libertarians are all confused as to who they should support? A real shocker that you guys aren’t being taken seriously.
sharrukin on February 10, 2012 at 3:44 AM
Sharrukin, those founders you list were religious men, but they were still philosophical and political libertarians who supported the separation of church and state and freedom of religion so that people of all faiths – not just their own – could live and worship as they pleased in a land of unprecedented liberty and self-determination. Most of the colonists came here to avoid religious persecution and forced adherence to the state-sanctioned religion in England. The quotes you shared in no way mean that those men wanted the goverent to impose a unified religion-based morality on all the people of the new nation.
I am not a social liberal. I am personally as vice-free as one can be, as defined by Judeo-Christian moral beliefs. I want a smaller, less intrusive federal government, plain and simple. That’s what libertarianism is to me and many others, and we are vilified for it. This is a short-sighted and self-defeating attitude for Repubicans to have.
aero on February 10, 2012 at 4:03 AM
Libertardians are 100% gay agenda driven nutcases.
Stop all wars, promote pederastry, hate Christians and banker-Zionist-Jews. That’s libertardian “thought” in a nutshell.
Masih ad-Dajjal on February 10, 2012 at 4:18 AM
Ayn Rand on libertarians:
http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=education_campus_libertarians
Masih ad-Dajjal on February 10, 2012 at 4:20 AM
Except they did impose a religiously based morality on the nation and called it the Constitution and the Bill Of Rights. Where do you think their morality came from?
What they didn’t do is create a state religion and placed obstacles to establishing one in the founding documents.
Those are two very different things that you are conflating.
So do most conservatives but how do you think that is going to happen? That isn’t what conservatives take issue with.
We take issue with the fact that you don’t stand and deliver when the time comes.
The guy who authored this open letter voted for Obama and stated…
So he is fine with Mitt Romney (No, no, I like mandates. The mandates work) who enacted Romneycare, the assault weapon ban, increased fee’s and taxes, pushed for taxation on internet activity, supported the bailouts, ethanol subsidies, forced Catholics to hand out contraceptives, and passed emissions limits on power plants.
He doesn’t give a hoot about fiscal conservatism.
His focus is on social liberalism which is why he is fine with voting for Obama in 2008, or for Romney in 2012, but NOT Santorum (2012) or McCain/Palin (2008).
Am I supposed to believe this?
sharrukin on February 10, 2012 at 4:36 AM
Except they did impose a religiously based morality on the nation and called it the Constitution and the Bill Of Rights. Where do you think their morality came from?
What they didn’t do is create a state religion and placed obstacles to establishing one in the founding documents.
Those are two very different things that you are conflating.
So do most conservatives but how do you think that is going to happen? That isn’t what conservatives take issue with.
We take issue with the fact that you don’t stand and deliver when the time comes.
The guy who authored this open letter voted for Obama and stated…
So he is fine with Mitt Romney (No, no, I like mandates. The mandates work) who enacted Romneycare, the assault weapon ban, increased fee’s and taxes, pushed for taxation on internet activity, supported the bailouts, ethanol subsidies, forced Catholics to hand out contraceptives, and passed emissions limits on power plants.
He doesn’t give a hoot about fiscal conservatism.
His focus is on social liberalism which is why he is fine with voting for Obama in 2008, or for Romney in 2012, but NOT Santorum (2012) or McCain/Palin (2008).
Am I supposed to believe this?
sharrukin on February 10, 2012 at 4:36 AM
We so need people like you to legislate what is right and good with the world for us backward people who can’t tie our shoes without your help. Thank goodness there are really super smart people like you to tell us how to live our lives.
John the Libertarian on February 10, 2012 at 6:39 AM
The radical progressive vibe is strong with your rhetoric.
What is the most important issue to you? Oh yes, that the State should decide that unborn babies have no right to live, while perverts should get state benefits and be recognized as married by the State. Oh, and NO MORE WARS. So very anti-Statist.
Now go glitter bomb someone.
Masih ad-Dajjal on February 10, 2012 at 7:11 AM
i consider myself an fiscal conservative and a republican moderate(which means i subscribe some liberal social views). I have been leaning libertarian recently and have an huge admiration for ron paul and I credit him of changing my view on FP.
so now I am a small goverment fiscal conservative, non interventionist conservative and a social issues moderate.
why should I vote for santy if his stand is the complete opposite of mine?
I can argue here that santy is just like obama but at least with obama I can share his opinion on social issues and honestly I dont know how republicans can then convince me on voting Santy instead of obama.
so, I will make Nate Nelson words my own too. Republicans, Consider yourself warned.
Romney or Newt are tolerable, but Santy? no way!
nathor on February 10, 2012 at 7:20 AM
For you Libertarians who are open to reason, unlike the unhappy gentleman above, please hear me out. Sitting in your Hobbit-holes in the hopes of being left alone is not an option for me or for you anymore. The world that you envision is, whether you wish to admit it or not, went away once the family farm ceased to be the dominant unit of economic output, if it ever existed at all.
In the meantime, not only have the distances that kept us apart from the rest of the world shrunk considerable, but the institutions of government, and even the so-called mediating institutions (schools, churches, voluntary associations, etc.) have been undermined and subverted in Gramscian fashion by the enemies of our republic and way of life.
They are not content to leave anyone alone. They want us to conform or they want us dead.
We will not keep the America we want by putting up fences around our yards and locking ourselves behind our front doors.
If the rest of you want to vote from your padded rooms, or not vote at all, be my guests by all means.
Ed Snyder on February 10, 2012 at 7:39 AM
And here I thought you were against any government intervention in social issues.
Government sponsored death to all unborn!
State sponsored marriage to zoophiles and necrophiles!
This is what true fiscal conservativism is all about. Balancing the budget and cutting entitlements? It’s only for reich-wing so-con neo-con warmongers!
Masih ad-Dajjal on February 10, 2012 at 7:41 AM
No, it does neither of those thing. What the Constitution DOES do, however, is specifically enumerate the powers the federal gov’t DOES have. And one of them is NOT banning the use of condoms or paying for them.
The Constitution ALSO extends the bill of rights to the states in the 14th. Meaning that whatever right to privacy is in the Bill of Rights (you can argue all you want whether that right is there or not) then that right is also protected against state action as well.
deadrody on February 10, 2012 at 7:54 AM
yes, but if we are to have big goverment candidates, then I prefer a liberal big goverment than a “right wing, social engineering” big government.
this kind of rhetoric still stuns me from time to time. we do you get this stuff?
santy defended more entitlements and voted for them, such as Medicare D.
Santy approved defended deficit budgets of the bush years.
nathor on February 10, 2012 at 8:10 AM
Wow the ignorance-fueled disdain for libertarians/libertarianism is startling.
Dante on February 10, 2012 at 8:23 AM
this kind of rhetoric still stuns me from time to time.
wewhere do you get this stuff?nathor on February 10, 2012 at 8:24 AM
In other words, abortion trumps all. That’s why liberterians are such liars. They are liberals who like to pretend they have some small gov’t leanings, but they are not. They routinely claim that “the right” threatens freedom more, yet in reality, in practice, freedom is always taken by the left by much greater degrees.
Libertarians vote for liberals b/c they fear “theocoms”. Yet, in practice, theocons have never actually materialized and done anything. So, that is a lie. A rouse. A rationalization for why libertarians always support big-gov’t, liberty stealing liberals.
And I love how you keep throwing around Medicare Part D. Yes, that was a stupid law and most conservatives were against it and against No Child Left Behind. But, unfortunately, it got passed and Santorum played by the team’s rules and voted for it. That entitlement program really stole your liberty. And those deficits of the Bush years. Terrible.
Better support Obama. He doesn’t steal liberty much, much, much worse or defecit spend much, much, much worse. You have to support Obama b/c if a “theocon” gets into office, he may try and get rid of abortion. Then all liberty everywhere ceases to exist. Much better to have Obama.
Libertarians are teenagers with daddy issues. That’s all. They are not serious thinking people. And, they don’t effect outcomes of any elections anywhere, so who cares what they think. go find your own damn blog and stop wasting our time.
Monkeytoe on February 10, 2012 at 8:27 AM
It’s not ignorance fueled. Libertarians vote for liberals. They talk a big game, but at the end, they always vote for bigger gov’t. You can rationalize it and argue it and say whatever you want, but facts is facts.
One cannot say “I believe in smaller gov’t and more liberty” and vote for a democrat. It is dishonest. Yes, republicans can be bad. They stray into entitlements and spending (Bush), but really – Gore was going to spend less or not pass bigger entitlements? Or Kerry? Or Obama?
And yet, the Libertarians always come out for the side that is much worse on spending, much worse on liberty, much worse on every issue the Libertarians claims to care about.
Why is that? Abortion? That’s why we do not respect Libertarians. They are like closeted homosexuals. they are really liberals, but can’t admit it to themselves.
Monkeytoe on February 10, 2012 at 8:32 AM
I’m not anti-libertarian; I’m anti-antinomianism.
Some of the more vocal “libertarians” use that label to hide their anarchy.
davidk on February 10, 2012 at 8:35 AM
This is false. Incorporation is, however, a case of activist jurists.
Dante on February 10, 2012 at 8:37 AM
Honesty! I like you more and more, dude.
We need people like you to remind Americans who libertarians truly are.
Masih ad-Dajjal on February 10, 2012 at 8:39 AM
That doesn’t make any sense.
Anarchy does not mean chaos or disorder. It simply means without archon, or without ruler or chief. And when you combine it with capitalism, like anarcho-capitalism, you have a very moral viewpoint. After all, as long as government exists (govern – to regulate and control), man is never truly free.
Dante on February 10, 2012 at 8:42 AM
As a proponent of limited government, I can say that in an Obama/Santorum matchup, there is no “lesser of two evils”. They are both tyrants, just with different agendas.
Look Polish on February 10, 2012 at 8:43 AM
It is ignorance-fueled, and the rest of your post is testament. Your confusion and belief that ‘Libertarian’, which is a political party, and ‘libertarianism’, which is a philosophy, are interchangeable is just one example.
Dante on February 10, 2012 at 8:46 AM
Well, you do have to know what words mean for them to make sense.
One must assume that man will do what’s right to think that anarchy will result in good. The reason that anarchy has come to mean chaos is that man will not choose right and anarchy always devolves into, well, anarchy.
davidk on February 10, 2012 at 8:49 AM
Libertarianism is Anarchism, by definition. Anarcho-Capitalism.
Libertarians actually believe the founding fathers were OWS-like flee infested hash-smokers, who glitter bombed public figures who supported the military, the rule of law or any moral system that isn’t radically anti-social. In short, Anarcho-Capitalists are deeply deluded social misfits, not unlike the classical Anarcho-Syndicalists.
The small percentage of libertarians who vote R, usually have no idea what conservativism is, and when they found out – they turn to Dems as quick as Ron Paul vomits his first “military-industrial complex” line in any given debate. Though they would still try to influence the conservatives to support socially lenient and economically liberal candidates like Romney. And the prime example lies in the libertarian article linked here.
Masih ad-Dajjal on February 10, 2012 at 8:53 AM
I do, which is why I said it makes no sense. Why are you trying to inject Christianity and religion into this?
Ah, circular logic. I guess that’s expected of one who doesn’t know what words mean.
Dante on February 10, 2012 at 8:54 AM
Show us on the doll where the mean old libertarian touched you.
If Santorum is actually for constitutional limitations on the federal government like so many are claiming, why did he vote for NCLB and Medicare Part D? The truth of the matter is some social conservatives (like some liberals) will do whatever it takes to accomplish their agenda. Constitutional and legal processes are irrelevant as long the agenda is achieved, which is why libertarians are just as afraid of people like Santorum as they are of Obama.
You would figure people would understand that the government is rarely ever the solution. Well, they do, but just in the areas that the government is passing legislation they disagree with. But continue to apply a standard of bigotry and ineptitude to all libertarians, makes you look really intelligent.
Kriggly on February 10, 2012 at 8:55 AM
I’m relatively libertarian and I am against abortion and didn’t vote for Obama. Do I get a cookie or do I still get lumped with the strawmen you’re creating?
Kriggly on February 10, 2012 at 8:59 AM
Mitt supported Medicare D, Newt supported Medicare D, Santorum supported Medicare D. Is this your best try? Heh.
The libertarian who penned this ridiculous article supports Romney (and Obama) over Santorum, who isn’t perfect to say the least, but has 88.1 lifetime ACU rating.
Admit it, the only reason you’d support Romney and Obama over Santorum, who is overall hundred fold less supportive of government intervention and bloated is because he has morals and convictions which are not as bankrupt and decadent as yours. Of course, you’d also support Obama over Romney, because Obama would dismantle the military and disrupt the rule of law.
Your group should stop co-opting conservativism and the GOP. Conservatives are not Anarchists, and conservative thought is not Anarchy. Not even close. Go co-opt the Dems, I assure you you’ll feel right home there.
Masih ad-Dajjal on February 10, 2012 at 9:07 AM
*and bloated budget
Masih ad-Dajjal on February 10, 2012 at 9:08 AM
Nothing circular about it. Just as streotypes become stereotypes, anarchy has come to mean chaos.
And antinomianism isn’t just for Christians, you know. But it is indeed a “religious” argument.
Existenalism tells us that man is born a blank slate. All he needs is the proper training/environment and he can be molded into the überman.
But God tells us that man is not a blank slate. Man’s essence is a being created in the image of God but marred by sin.
It is not only that man will not do what is right; he cannot do what is right.
Paul wrestled witht that himself: “What I want to do, I cannot do. What I do not want to do, that I do.”
Only by the power of the Holy Spirit allowing the life of Jesus Christ being lived through him can a man do right. Even then we fall short; we miss the mark.
If a man does wrong them family should correct him (hence the government’s assault on the family). If the family does not correct him, the church corrects him (hence the government’s assualt on the church). If the church cannot correct him, then the government corrects him.
The government should have but a limited role in governing man. However, the liberal (informed by existentialism) does not see man correctly, so it wants big government control.
The antinomian wants no controls. Hence anarchy, in its worst form will result.
The libertarian view of man is such that man will do what is right. Unfortunately, that is not the case
davidk on February 10, 2012 at 9:19 AM
if it was just abortion, i would be ok with if that was the only thing i disagreed on, but its also contraception, gay issues, and more important, I want a secular government.
yes, its true, I dislike the Theocoms. but what you are saying is that I should ignore Santy social conservatism because he will never gonna do anything about it?
and ron “the kook” paul voted against… team player?
i am not deluded, Obama spent more because of the recession. else, he would have spent the same as bush. but if we really going to make historic analysis on the dems spending virtues, then its also true that clinton spent less than bush. I have no reason to believe that Santy will be a fiscal conservative.
ignore us at your own risk. I suggest you look at some polls in a Romney\Paul\Obama for you to see how much percentage of the swing vote we are.
nathor on February 10, 2012 at 9:28 AM
No. Libertarians are supposed to believe the rule of law. I am a deep believer that the laws of the country should be obeyed either you agree with them or not. to believe the opposite is true anarchy.
nathor on February 10, 2012 at 9:35 AM
Riiiiiiight.
Dante on February 10, 2012 at 9:37 AM
Thank you.
davidk on February 10, 2012 at 9:43 AM
true moral behavior can never originate from lies such as the christian dogma.
you are a theocon!
nathor on February 10, 2012 at 10:01 AM
OK.
davidk on February 10, 2012 at 11:13 AM
If “true moral behavior” is not rooted in an Absolute, “true moral behavior” does not exist.
davidk on February 10, 2012 at 11:15 AM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2