Headlines

Timothy Carney

DeMint was the libertarian hero of the Senate

DeMint did vote against libertarian principles on some prominent issues, such as immigration. But when DeMint offended libertarians, it was mostly with his words. In a 2004 debate, DeMint said he didn’t think open lesbians or women who are pregnant out of wedlock should be teaching. But it never mattered what DeMint thought about who should and who shouldn’t be teaching — in part, because he believes in federalism and he doesn’t want Washington meddling in education.

DeMint upset libertarians when he told Fox in 2010, “You can’t be a fiscal conservative unless you’re also a social conservative.”

DeMint’s wording was very poor, and this is a gross overstatement. But had he been more careful, he would have had a good point.

DeMint and others could make deeper philosophical arguments about family, church and community as counterweights to state power, but there are also the basic facts on the ground: The best fiscal conservatives in politics are all social conservatives. Look at the Club for Growth scorecard again. All the most fiscally conservative senators are pro-life. You have to go down to No. 27 in the Club’s rankings — Mark Kirk — to find a pro-choicer.

Read the Article

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

Goes on and on about how DeMint wants to legislate morality. Concludes he’s a libertarian hero.

What bizarro school of politics did Carney go to?

lester on December 10, 2012 at 2:24 PM

Goes on and on about how DeMint wants to legislate morality. Concludes he’s a libertarian hero.

What bizarro school of politics did Carney go to?

lester on December 10, 2012 at 2:24 PM

All laws have moral content by their very nature. When you outlaw murder, are you not making a declarative moral statement saying murder is wrong?

vegconservative on December 10, 2012 at 2:29 PM

No that’s Rand Paul not demint. Demint was the small government guy. Big difference something the press and many talking heads fail to understand.

unseen on December 10, 2012 at 2:30 PM

All laws have moral content by their very nature. When you outlaw murder, are you not making a declarative moral statement saying murder is wrong?

vegconservative on December 10, 2012 at 2:29 PM

The great security against a gradual concentration of the several powers in the same department, consists in giving to those who administer each department the necessary constitutional means and personal motives to resist encroachments of the others. The provision for defense must in this, as in all other cases, be made commensurate to the danger of attack. Ambition must be made to counteract ambition. The interest of the man must be connected with the constitutional rights of the place. It may be a reflection on human nature, that such devices should be necessary to control the abuses of government. But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions

-Madison Federalist #51

“Society is produced by our wants, and government by our wickedness; the former promotes our happiness positively by uniting our affections, the latter negatively by restraining our vices. The one encourages intercourse, the other creates distinctions. The first is a patron, the last a punisher.

Paine

unseen on December 10, 2012 at 2:36 PM

All laws have moral content by their very nature. When you outlaw murder, are you not making a declarative moral statement saying murder is wrong?

vegconservative on December 10, 2012 at 2:29 PM

Not a good example of morality-based law. I’m not a libertarian but I would assume murder is outlawed in libertarian view primarily because it infringes on somebody else’s liberty to have a life.

lester on December 10, 2012 at 2:49 PM

All laws have moral content by their very nature. When you outlaw murder, are you not making a declarative moral statement saying murder is wrong?

vegconservative on December 10, 2012 at 2:29 PM

Not a good example of morality-based law. I’m not a libertarian but I would assume murder is outlawed in libertarian view primarily because it infringes on somebody else’s liberty to have a life.

lester on December 10, 2012 at 2:49 PM

That it infringes on someone else’s rights is precisely why it’s considered immoral. Also, for something which often is considered “legislating morality,” abortion is immoral for precisely the same reason. It infringes on someone else’s liberty to have a life, and without that protection, no other rights matter. You can’t enjoy a right to privacy, for example, if you’re dead.

vegconservative on December 10, 2012 at 3:07 PM

Goes on and on about how DeMint wants to legislate morality. Concludes he’s a libertarian hero.

What bizarro school of politics did Carney go to?

lester on December 10, 2012 at 2:24 PM

He didn’t try to legislate morality. That was the article’s point.

cptacek on December 10, 2012 at 3:12 PM

All laws have moral content by their very nature. When you outlaw murder, are you not making a declarative moral statement saying murder is wrong?

vegconservative on December 10, 2012 at 2:29 PM

I wouldn’t try to read too much morality into speed limits and stop signs.

John the Libertarian on December 10, 2012 at 3:12 PM

I wouldn’t try to read too much morality into speed limits and stop signs.

John the Libertarian on December 10, 2012 at 3:12 PM

I’m gonna try anyways. Doesn’t driving recklessly (fast) infringe on other’s right to safety (an extension of their right to life)? And isn’t it immoral to allow someone’s rights to be infringed upon?

vegconservative on December 10, 2012 at 3:20 PM

I wouldn’t try to read too much morality into speed limits and stop signs.

John the Libertarian on December 10, 2012 at 3:12 PM

Really? While it’s true such laws are sometimes used — or misused — for other purposes, such as speed traps to make money, the basic premise of both speed limits and stop signs is to keep the public roads reasonably safe for all travelers. Protecting the life and property of citizens definitely derives from a moral principle.

Shump on December 10, 2012 at 3:47 PM

DeMint upset libertarians when he told Fox in 2010, “You can’t be a fiscal conservative unless you’re also a social conservative.”

DeMint’s wording was very poor, and this is a gross overstatement. But had he been more careful, he would have had a good point.

No, his wording was not poor, and it was not an overstatement. One who claims to be a fiscal conservative but not a social conservative is deluding themselves. DeMint was right. One flows from the other. You cannot separate them any more than you could have water with hydrogen alone. When you separate them, you have libertarianism, which is quite different from conservatism, and not what we should be striving for.

Shump on December 10, 2012 at 3:48 PM

For conservative movement leadership, my money’s on DeMint, Rand Paul, Ryan, and Rubio.

petefrt on December 10, 2012 at 3:59 PM