Redstate

Agreed. McCain did not win. Brownback seemed sincere, but it will be hard for the Romney haters and bigots to downplay his performance tonight. He's already being declared the winner by much of the punditry. Browback looked good, but Romney won.

He didn't win the debate. Giuliani not only dropped the ball, but let everyone know how wiggly his line is on abortion. Brownback had his moments, but I think Huckabee came across as more Presidential. Romney took it, but that's just my vote :P

Maybe he practiced too much. He wasn't exactly insincere, but there was a "televangelistic" element to his presentation. I'd argue that McCain did better.

I really got a kick out of Ron Paul. His crotchety, "purer than thou" conservatism reminded me of Ross Perot (who was much more popular before he put Clinton in the White House). Certainly Paul's a long shot for the nomination, but I appreciated the perspective he brought to the debate. If he's still around when the field narrows, he'll make things lively in head-to-head formats, challenging the views of the front runners.

so you'd expect his views to be quite different than Republicans in some cases.

I admit I don't much care for Romney, but he did a good job. But, to cite a quote I saw last night on National Review Online, he came across as a game-show host.

I'd say Huckabee might have done himself the most good, overall, but Brownback too.

Guiliani hurt himself, because those folks who have been claiming he's someone prolifers could really support, saw theprops knocked out from under their arguments. His idea of "strict constructionist" justices are those who would uphold Roe v. Wade? Gimme a break!

Fr Martin Fox

Last I checked, Paul was the Libertarian party nominee in 1988. While he's hooked up with the GOP since then, he's still philosophically a small-l libertarian.

There are pro-life libertarians and Libertarians out there; in NJ, a pro-life Libertarian drained away quite a few votes away from Christine Whitman in her reelection run in 1997. In addition, I recall a Michigan Libertarian, Joe Overton, who was a Sunday School classmate of mine and a solid pro-lifer; he was a VP at the Mackinac Center free-market think tank before dying in a plane crash in 2003.

Swamp Yankee is somewhat right in that there's quite a bit of overlap between modern libertarian and "classic conservative Republicans," especially before moral issues brought a ton of "theocons" like me into the party. For instance, Barry Goldwater would likely be too liberal on social issues to be nominated in the modern GOP.

Libertarianism is an ideology. Conservatism is not. Libertarians believe in small government or no government as a matter of dogma. Classic conservatives believe in the politcs of prescription. Paul often follows the orignal intent of our federal government as prescribed by the founders.

There is a big difference. Libertarians often follow the original intent because the original intent advocates a small federal government and individual liberties. However, libertarians and consitutionalists are not always aligned. For example, free trade is the holy grail of libertarians. Paul is skeptic of free trade and free trade deals.

Also, while Paul appears to be a libertarian of a federal level, he does not always have the same positions on a state level. That is a big difference between classic conservatives and a true libertarian. Liberterians believe in small government at all levels as a matter of dogma. A classic conservative believes that the federal government is too powerful and usurped states rights. He may hold a libertarian position at a federal level, but would have no problem letting states or municipalities govern the issue (i.e. Federal Marriage Amendement, tort reform, death penalty). Libertarians always believe in little or no government intervention no matter the level.

both conservatives and libertarians. I believe in small government at all levels and am a conservative not a libertarian, even of the little 'l' variety. I've taken their test and come out, oddly enough, as a moderate, because I believe there are times when the needs/rights of society at large are more important than the needs/rights of an individual.

The key element for libertarians is that they ALWAYS prefer the rights of the individual. Some of them are ideologues, some are not. Some are little different than anarchists, others see the need for strong government structures for certain things. Libertarians are divided on the abortion question, and willing to debate it. In a discussion with one on that question, they conceded that it fundamentally comes down to a question of whether or not the fetus/baby is an individual or not. They didn't see that it was, and therefore believe the choice is strictly that of the mothers, but they could see that since I do believe it is an individual, that under those circumstances the state does have at least an interest if not a duty to protect the other individual. All in all I thought he was more balanced than most dems I've discussed the question with.

So the question is, is their belief that the individual is always right ideological or experimental. I'd have a tough time arguing that it isn't experimental. History is replete with non-individualist governments and those group centered governments opposed to indivdual centered are the more tyranical ones. So experimentally more individual=better government. My own sense is that our part of our current problem is that we have moved so far in the individualist direction that the structures which support the society we live in are falling apart from the stresses. But I can't experimentally prove that yet. I suppose you could say that belief stems from my theology rather than my history, which is part of why I'm a conservative. I believe that the judgement of man taking into account all things he can learn is the most essential element of political leadership. Not intelligence or ideology, but a broad knowledge of many things and applying that to new situations. It's not about how big or small government is at any particular level, it is about how everything (mind, spirit, body) fits together and interacts with everything else.

Not once did you reference the Constitution. You can hardly evoke a response from Ron Paul without him referencing the Constitution. Libertarians believe in the ideological abstract design of small government. Ron Paul is not a libertarian in this regard.

It is well respected by conservative thinkers that modern conservatism can be traced through Burke, Adams, Kirk, ... There is a conservative lineage that has nothing to do with always supporting small government solutions. Libertarians descend more from Ayn Rand school of though. The collective versus the individual is just one dynamic to a large picture.

There is not ideological answer for conservatives. There is no one essential question or breakdown. It does not come down to the singular question that you posit. That's for intellectuals and ideologues who believe in abstractions. I am a disciple of Kirk with more American populism infused into my conservatism as I believe it to be more stoutly American, while Kirk adhered to the Tory tradition. Although Ron Paul holds many libertarian views, his views represent a desire to preserve and conserve our country and our constitution's heritage and origianl intent. That is conservative. He really is a conservative and not an ideological libertarian.

The Barry Goldwater who was liberal on social issues would have been too liberal to have been nominated by the old GOP too. He made attacking pornography a big part of his campaign, for instance.

They that are with us are more than they that are against us.

I'm not so sure he does. He votes against multilateral trade agreements, but he does that because he dislikes the trade organizations that police the agreements. He doesn't like to hand sovereignty over to unaccountable multi-national organizations like the WTO. I don't know where he stands on unilaterally dropping or erecting barriers to trade -- do you?

Libertarians can certainly be pro-life. If you believe that abortion is the killing of an innocent human life without consent, you can certainly argue that it is proper for government to step in and protect one party from being victimized by the other.

Libertarians do not believe in strong borders? You can't be a libertarian and believe in maintaining the sovereignty of the United States? Without defending and maintaining the integrity of the United States, there is no United States any more. Not exactly a recipe for increased liberty if you ask me.

I think you have libertarians confused with anarchists. Libertarians do not believe in no government. That would be anarchists. Libertarians know there can't be any liberty at all if there's no law and everyone is simply ruled by the guy with the most guns.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

So many people throw around these silly labels as if Conservativism was invented twenty years ago. I think the infusion of social conservatives has led people to consider themselves of Libertarians. I get tired of it and post because I respect Ron Paul as a true conservative. He's an oddball no doubt and his views are a little to pure. I just fear people do not even know what traditional conservatism means anymore.

The official Libertarian Pary link. Please read the issues section on immigration. http://www.lp.org/issues/welfare.shtml

If you are pro-life, tough on immigration and anti-NAFTA and Anti-WTO (Just to mention three things. I do not know all of Paul's positions) you are NOT and ideological libertarian. Again, read their own website on immigration.

People seem to define things based on there own experiences, but words mean things and have bigger histories than any one person. You are not a libertarian just because you are a small government Republican or you are not a Theocon or a Socan.

A whole lot of Libertarian (capital L) candidates do not support the entire Libertarian (capital L) platform. I guess they must not be libertarians (small L) either. There sure must not be very many libertarians out there if that is the criteria they must meet. It seems to me there wouldn't be many.

There would be a whole lot fewer conservatives out there if they must agree with the Conservative party platform as well. That also raises the question of what happens when you move to a country or state where another Conservative party is active with an entirely different platform. I guess you must change your views when you move there or you will cease to be a conservative overnight. The same goes for periodic updates to the party platform, I suppose.

If you are so big on words meaning things, I would start by differentiating between Libertarians and libertarians, because those two words do not mean the same thing.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

"That also raises the question of what happens when you move to a country or state where another Conservative party is active with an entirely different platform." Moving to a different country? Huh?

I am very much aware of "libertarians". As I referenced above, I believe Ayn Rand to be the greatest libertarian thinker, but she is too rigid as are most libertarians. It's almost the converse of socialism. Two polar ideologies that think they can cure the worlds ills if we just follow a specific design.

Read my original post on the matter. Ron Paul is goofy. He's a little too Elmer Fuddish. His views are often unrealistic. Conservatism is not rigid. Time, technology, population and travel distance make a purified form of original intent impractical, but I respect the guy. And I want to make sure he is respected for being a paleocon or a constitutinalist, which is really what he is. He is not some libertarian ideologue.

I started this because I respect true conservatives and Ron Paul even if he is a little wacky.

"That also raises the question of what happens when you move to a country or state where another Conservative party is active with an entirely different platform." Moving to a different country? Huh?

You are using the Libertarian Party and the political philosophy that is libertarianism interchangably. The point is, you could do the same ridiculous thing with conservatism and the Conservative Party. The problem you run into there is there are lots of Conservative parties that stand for different things. So how would you know which website to link to for an official declaration of what is or is not a conservative position?

In other words, the fact that the Libertarian Party has something in their platform doesn't amount to jack.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

So the Republican Party platform doesn't mean jack? I think it's very representative of conservative thought. The inspiration for the Libertarian Party is libertarianism.

I would start with offical national Conservative Party platform just like I would the official Republican Party platform and offical Libertartian Party platform, which is pro-gay rights, pro-choice, pro-open border, pro-free trade, pro- drug legalization, pro-victims rights; all of which is very much in accordance with the libertarian ideology.

The Republican Party does not enter into it, unless you decide you want to equate belief in republicanism with support of the Republican Party platform (which would be just as faulty). I don't care what the "inspiration" of the Libertarian Party is. They are not the arbiters of what is and what is not a libertarian position, any more than the Conservative Party of New York (or of Canada or of the UK) is the arbiter of what is conservative, simply because they happen use the same name.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

But apparently you are the self-declared arbiter of the libertarism, anarchists and conservatives. The absolute height of relativism.

Your comment on Republicans is silly. It's like saying Democrats are Democrats because they believe in democracy. The name of the parties is archaic. It's what the parties represent.