Is Michael Gerson Right About Republicans?

[moonshot925]

What I meant is that the GOP needs to be more economic libertarian.

It needs to be the party of less government, less spending, lower taxes, no socialist healthcare. If the Republicans embrace conservatism they will never lose.

[gamerunknown]

Originally Posted by Voyager

Ryan is a perfect example.

He's an ideal blend actually: he even voted for the Iraq war. He somehow manages to be anti-immigration with an interventionist foreign policy and Christian morality with no concern for the poor. All of the most popular elements of the GOP platform all rolled into one guy! I just don't know why he didn't run for president.

[sitchensis]

Originally Posted by moonshot925

What I meant is that the GOP needs to be more economic libertarian.

It needs to be the party of less government, less spending, lower taxes, no socialist healthcare. If the Republicans embrace conservatism they will never lose.

If “less government” means pro-choice, pro gay-marriage, and complete separation of church and state, you may have something for independent voters.

[John DiFool]

Originally Posted by Zakalwe

Ummm...actually based on the history of the GOP, libertarians are the RINOs. They couldn't make it on their own and decided it would be easier to co-opt the GOP than the Democratic Party, but they have no understanding of nor sympathy with "traditional" conservatism. (R) is simply a convenient label to use to ensure they get a place on the ballot.

Or with traditional libertarianism, or they all would be the first to line up demanding that gays have full same-sex marriage rights.

[Jonathan Chance]

Originally Posted by moonshot925

What I meant is that the GOP needs to be more economic libertarian.

It needs to be the party of less government, less spending, lower taxes, no socialist healthcare. If the Republicans embrace conservatism they will never lose.

Untrue. While what you layout is useful if they reject the 20% of votes who identify as 'values voters' their prospects for election tumble.

[Jonathan Chance]

Gerson strikes again, by the way.

Republicans are Missing an Opening with Hispanic Voters.

Again, Gerson is hitting an obvious point. But it's interesting that someone connected with the party is actually saying these things. It'll continue the 'he's a RINO' narrative but I'll take any rebellion against the hardline tea party types in the Republican Party.

[Ravenman]

Originally Posted by moonshot925

It needs to be the party of less government, less spending, lower taxes, no socialist healthcare. If the Republicans embrace conservatism they will never lose.

I believe Herman Cain ran on those principles, and Republicans didn't even want him.

[42fish]

Originally Posted by moonshot925

It needs to be the party of less government, less spending, lower taxes, no socialist healthcare. If the Republicans embrace conservatism they will never lose.

Originally Posted by Ravenman

I believe Herman Cain ran on those principles, and Republicans didn't even want him.

To be fair, lots of Republicans have run on those principles and won. Of course, once in office they ditched the first three of them PDQ.

[Happy Lendervedder]

Originally Posted by moonshot925

What I meant is that the GOP needs to be more economic libertarian.

It needs to be the party of less government, less spending, lower taxes, no socialist healthcare. If the Republicans embrace conservatism they will never lose.

It really does seem to be working out great in Haiti!

[Linden Arden]

Originally Posted by moonshot925

The compassionate conservative agenda driven by the social conservative evangelicals such as Huckabee is what destroyed the GOP in the 2000s.

It is what led to No Child Left Behind, the Medicare prescription-drug benefit, runaway spending, amnesty for illegal aliens and TARP.

It resulted GOP defeats of 2006 and 2008.

I have to agree with moonshot for once. That is, if he includes the Bible-Beaters in this group.

I didn't hate the GOP until the SoCons like Bush took it over.

Remember, Bush was compassionate to Africa with his AIDS donations but it was cover to evangelize for Christianity.

[Little Nemo]

Originally Posted by Esox Lucius

And how is the party's trend to libertarianism going so far?

Originally Posted by moonshot925

It led to the GOP victory in 2010 and soon-to-be victory in 2012.

On the up side, libertarianism is ending taxation and government spending, reviving the economy, and solving every political and social problem in America and the rest of the world. On the down side, libertarianism is reaching the point where its supporters are starting to think their fantasy world is real.

[Ibn Warraq]

Originally Posted by moonshot925

What I meant is that the GOP needs to be more economic libertarian.

It needs to be the party of less government, less spending, lower taxes, no socialist healthcare. If the Republicans embrace conservatism they will never lose.

That's a very odd position to take for someone who claims he was an Air Force veteran.

Libertarians believe in dramatically cutting military spending and generally are strongly isolationist arguing, amongst other things, that the purpose of the US military is solely to defend the US borders and object to having so many bases all over the world.

Most members of the military who are conservative tend to be big government conservatives for rather obvious reasons.

[Esox Lucius]

Originally Posted by moonshot925

What I meant is that the GOP needs to be more economic libertarian.

It needs to be the party of less government, less spending, lower taxes, no socialist healthcare. If the Republicans embrace conservatism they will never lose.

Ideally, that's the way it should be and we'd all be conservative if the world was an Ayn Rand utopia, but the world isn't made that way. There's always that pesky 47 percent, and not taking them into account doesn't make them go away. Hence, the liberal bias of reality.

[Bosstone]

Originally Posted by moonshot925

It needs to be the party of less government, less spending, lower taxes, no socialist healthcare. If the Republicans embrace conservatism they will never lose.

Make up your mind.

[moonshot925]

Originally Posted by Ibn Warraq

That's a very odd position to take for someone who claims he was an Air Force veteran.

Libertarians believe in dramatically cutting military spending and generally are strongly isolationist arguing, amongst other things, that the purpose of the US military is solely to defend the US borders and object to having so many bases all over the world.

Most members of the military who are conservative tend to be big government conservatives for rather obvious reasons.

True. There are some crazy libertarians.

[jayjay]

Originally Posted by moonshot925

If the Republicans embrace conservatism they will never lose.

Conservatism can never fail. It can only BE failed...

[Voyager]

Originally Posted by Ravenman

I believe Herman Cain ran on those principles, and Republicans didn't even want him.

You give the Republicans too much credit. The real problem seemed to be that some of his female employees didn't want him.

[Voyager]

Originally Posted by moonshot925

If the Republicans embrace conservatism they will never lose.

*ahem* Barry Goldwater *ahem*

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by moonshot925

What I meant is that the GOP needs to be more economic libertarian.

It needs to be the party of less government, less spending, lower taxes, no socialist healthcare. If the Republicans embrace conservatism they will never lose.

Of course they will, because conservatism as you define it is a minority position among the American people. You do understand that, don't you?

[Fuzzy Dunlop]

Originally Posted by boytyperanma

Compassionate conservatism helped him win the election to begin with. If the GOP officially drops the compassionate conservative part of their party they are in danger of losing their Christian base. How would they win elections without it?

The most compassionate thing many extreme Christians have done lately is eat a fatty fried chicken sandwich to celebrate that gays can't get married. The real reason the compassion part matters is for moderate voters who are a little too self-aware of the uncertainty in their own lives to embrace the black and white creator/leach dynamic libertarian conservatives embrace.

[Little Nemo]

Originally Posted by Ibn Warraq

That's a very odd position to take for someone who claims he was an Air Force veteran.

Libertarians believe in dramatically cutting military spending and generally are strongly isolationist arguing, amongst other things, that the purpose of the US military is solely to defend the US borders and object to having so many bases all over the world.

Most members of the military who are conservative tend to be big government conservatives for rather obvious reasons.

That's the beauty of libertarianism. It's all about you. Moonshot's no longer in the military so the existence of the military no longer serves his individual self-interest.

[Ibn Warraq]

Originally Posted by moonshot925

True. There are some crazy libertarians.

That's a really weird statement. What I just mentioned have been the standard libertarian platform and the beliefs of every Presidential candidate for the Libertarian party for the past few decades.

Do you know anything about this political ideology you claim to embrace.

I'm reminded of signs that used to appear in the French countryside in the 1960s.

Vote Communist! The Party of the Small Property Holder!

[elucidator]

EuroCommunism grew to be a very different animal than Soviet Communism.

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by elucidator

EuroCommunism grew to be a very different animal than Soviet Communism.

Compare the differences between the Pyrenean desman and the Russian desman.

[WillFarnaby]

I don't believe the author has the faintest idea of what libertarianism is. He seems to confuse Republican attempts to explain free market economics as libertarian nonsense. What he has a problem with is the recent refusal of congressional republicans to compromise their stated ideals in order to get more votes.

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by WillFarnaby

He seems to confuse Republican attempts to explain free market economics as libertarian nonsense.

The difference being?

[WillFarnaby]

Originally Posted by BrainGlutton

The difference being?

I've never heard a libertarian frame his or her economic position in this "makers" vs "takers" jargon that some Republicans are spewing. Ayn Rand is not libertarian. I'm tired of hearing these lazy pundits lump her in whenever libertarianism is involved because she's an easy target. It's dishonest demagoguery that I would expect from Fox News or Rachel Maddow on her bad days. Not something that should be discussed on this forum.

If the author is too lazy to read the libertarians or Austrians he should admit as much and find another topic

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by WillFarnaby

I've never heard a libertarian frame his or her economic position in this "makers" vs "takers" jargon that some Republicans are spewing.

. . . Seriously?

Originally Posted by WillFarnaby

Ayn Rand is not libertarian. I'm tired of hearing these lazy pundits lump her in whenever libertarianism is involved because she's an easy target. It's dishonest demagoguery that I would expect from Fox News or Rachel Maddow on her bad days. Not something that should be discussed on this forum.

Don't even go there. No, Rand did not join nor approve of the Libertarian Party, but it's full of her fans.

Originally Posted by WillFarnaby

If the author is too lazy to read the libertarians or Austrians he should admit as much and find another topic

If you mean the Austrian school of economics, there's a very good reason why the Austrians are not worth reading; they espouse a formalistic-like-math "economics" which explicitly rejects the very possibility of scientific falsifiability.

[WillFarnaby]

Originally Posted by BrainGlutton

. . . Seriously?



Don't even go there. No, Rand did not join nor approve of the Libertarian Party, but it's full of her fans.

I'm not talking about the man on the street. I'm talking about academics.

If you mean the Austrian school of economics, there's a very good reason why the Austrians are not worth reading; they espouse a formalistic-like-math "economics" which explicitly rejects the very possibility of scientific falsifiability

And it bears no resemblance to modern Republican rhetoric. So my point is the author is full of shit.

ETA: how is explicitely rejecting scientific falsifiability and explaining your reasons inferior to implicitly rejecting scientific falsifiability by ignoring the evidence when inconvenient and not explaining why as the monetarists and keynesians do?

[Qin Shi Huangdi]

Originally Posted by Linden Arden

I have to agree with moonshot for once. That is, if he includes the Bible-Beaters in this group.

I didn't hate the GOP until the SoCons like Bush took it over.

Remember, Bush was compassionate to Africa with his AIDS donations but it was cover to evangelize for Christianity.

Cite that his main motivating factor was to evangelize?

[Zakalwe]

Originally Posted by John DiFool

Or with traditional libertarianism, or they all would be the first to line up demanding that gays have full same-sex marriage rights.

True dat. If you go back a classic defintion of libertarian. However, libertarianism in the modern US means whatever someone calling themselves Libertarian says it means. There's no there there. Haven't heard LINO yet, but it can't be far off...

[gamerunknown]

Originally Posted by Zakalwe

Haven't heard LINO yet, but it can't be far off...

LINOs took the floor with paleolibertarianism. Alternatively, since the definition of libertarian has shifted in the American lexicon, bleeding heart libertarians arguing from Utilitarian premises may seem to be LINOs.

Oh and there is a point when libertarian economists can make falsifiable predictions: when state actors have been eradicated completely. Just as the anarchy of production will end and people will reach self-actualisation through subsumption by the state.

[Measure for Measure]

Originally Posted by Wesley Clark

It is all bullshit, but it is bullshit that makes people feel good about themselves. And asking a party that believes the things the GOP believes to stop believing bullshit because they like they way it sounds is not going to happen. A big part of their modern ideology is based on believing lies because they like the lies better than the truth. You might as well rail against the sky being blue if you are going to ask a party as openly and consistently divorced from reality as the contemporary GOP to be more realistic in its assessment of self and others.

I'm coming around to this POV. Two weeks ago I sympathized with this guy (whose book I haven't gotten around to reading) but tonight I read half of ianzin's free pdf and am thinking that the Dem's messaging is all wrong. They need to develop a line of argument that makes people feel good about themselves, in other words they need some innocuous bullshit. It would be a supplement.

Originally Posted by Oedipus

Can we clarify though? I feel that liberal (true) libertarians shouldn't be mentioned in the same sentance as Randians who claim libertarianism just so they can have a more conservative ruling on social issues and keep more tax dollars to themselves.

Milton Friedmanites want to keep more tax dollars to themselves as well. The difference is that Friedman was an empiricist while Ayn Rand's work was economically and philosophically empty, though it had some genre appeal.

Originally Posted by Little Nemo

The libertarian wing may be a faction in the Republican party but I don't think it's ever going to take over. A bunch of people who are promoting a philosophy of individual self-interest are never going to be able to successfully band together. They can't compete against the other conservative factions that favor more collective philosophies: the big business faction, the family values faction, or the national security faction - these factions hold together.

The libertarian faction may attract a crowd. But every member of that crowd is thinking about what the movement can do for them rather than what they can do for the movement.

Agreed, but libertarian chatter papering over a big business faction should have some traction. Look at the Koch Bros., who are perfectly happy to absorb preferential tax treatment.

Originally Posted by Qin Shi Huangdi

If you show me a Republican that would be willing to have women publically executed in a sport stadium for killing an abusive husband you might have a point.

Authoritarian dictatorialism has very little traction in the Republican party, which is interesting. The closest they come to it is via voter suppression, which proves that their commitment to democracy is superficial. Still, they haven't taken the next step. That said, methinks your point is reasonable, btw.

Originally Posted by WillFarnaby

Ayn Rand is not libertarian. I'm tired of hearing these lazy pundits lump her in whenever libertarianism is involved because she's an easy target. It's dishonest demagoguery that I would expect from Fox News or Rachel Maddow on her bad days. Not something that should be discussed on this forum.

If the author is too lazy to read the libertarians or Austrians he should admit as much and find another topic

Of course Ayn Rand is a libertarian. She has even had some defenders on this board. I didn't know you were an Austrian though.

Originally Posted by WillFarnaby

I'm not talking about the man on the street. I'm talking about academics.

Among academics, Austrian economics is fringe. It's not crackpottery. But it is fringe. Analogous to Marxism - and that's not snark: it's an observation. You might find this mainstream attack interesting. Or not. As for Ayn Rand and academia, I understand that there are few specialist philosophers who attempt to shore up her thoughts.

And it bears no resemblance to modern Republican rhetoric. So my point is the author is full of shit.

Gerson appears to be a neocon, judging from wikipedia. FWIW.

ETA: how is explicitly rejecting scientific falsifiability and explaining your reasons inferior to implicitly rejecting scientific falsifiability by ignoring the evidence when inconvenient and not explaining why as the monetarists and keynesians do?

It took me a while to parse this. I find it oddly reassuring that you (correctly in my view) put monetarists and keynesians in the same boat, though traditionally Milton Friedman and Bob Solow were considered ideological opponents. I'm not aware of the criticism that you are alluding to.

[Princhester]

Originally Posted by Kevbo

The rich rely on the poor to do what needs to be done cheaply. When they exterminate the poor, the rich will need to do their own laundry, cook their own meals, and clean their own toilets. The rich need the poor much more than the converse.

The rich just need the poor to be alive and compliant though. Their need is not co-extensive with the poor's wants, so your point is not very meaningful.

Originally Posted by Zakalwe

True dat. If you go back a classic defintion of libertarian. However, libertarianism in the modern US means whatever someone calling themselves Libertarian says it means.

I believe in libertarianism because I believe everyone should be free to do the things that I think it is appropriate for people to do. I believe in small government because I think government should under no circumstance be any larger than it needs to be to perform the functions I think appropriate. I believe in free speech because I think that everybody should be able to say things I agree with. I believe in the free market because I don't want any restrictions on my ability to corner the market. I believe in conservatism because I don't like any change that doesn't make things how I like them to be.

[gamerunknown]

I found this article on Ayn Rand enlightening.

[WillFarnaby]

Originally Posted by Measure for Measure

It took me a while to parse this. I find it oddly reassuring that you (correctly in my view) put monetarists and keynesians in the same boat, though traditionally Milton Friedman and Bob Solow were considered ideological opponents. I'm not aware of the criticism that you are alluding to.

I had to rush to get the last sentence in on time it was an ugly little thing. I was just trying to point out that austrians explain up front that empirical evidence isn't reliable in economics. The others seek validation in economic outcomes almost entirely, unless of course what they predict doesn't happen. For example Rothbard points out:

Suppose a theory asserts that a certain policy will cure a depression. The government, obedient to the theory, puts the policy into effect. The depression is not cured. The critics andadvocates of the theory now leap to the fore with interpretations. The critics say that failure proves the theory incorrect. The advo-cates say that the government erred in not pursuing the theory boldly enough, and that what is needed is stronger measures in thesame direction. Now the point is that
empirically there is no possibleway of deciding between them. Where is the empirical “test” to resolve the debate? How can the government rationally decide upon its next step? Clearly, the only possible way of resolving the issue is in the realm of pure theory—by examining the conflicting premises and chains of reasoning.

As for your mainstream critique. I am encountering some criticisms i've seen rebutted and others I have not. I still have a lot of reading to do.

[Measure for Measure]

Originally Posted by WillFarnaby

As for your mainstream critique. I am encountering some criticisms i've seen rebutted and others I have not. I still have a lot of reading to do.

You are sorting through paradigms which is hard work. Doubly so when there are fundamental methodological disagreements.

Speaking generally, my take is that there's something seriously wrong with a description of the world/methodology that makes no allowance for observation, investigation and having the discipline to be tethered by fact. I'm not making accusations against Austrians here, as I don't know enough about them frankly. I will say that empirical investigation has a better track record than purely deductive methods. But as Bertrand Russell once observed, it's not entirely clear why. [1]



[1] Cite: A History of Western Philosophy

[Smellyalater]

Originally Posted by Derleth

Michael Gerson (President George W. Bush's chief speechwriter from 2001 until June 2006, a senior policy advisor from 2000 through June 2006, and was a member of the White House Iraq Group) has some harsh language for modern Republicans, mainly to the theme of "Stop sidling up to the libertarians and grow some compassion for the less fortunate."

His Op-Ed in the Washington Post isn't quite that to the point, but it comes close:OK, the last sentence is pretty much as tart as my summary of him was.

So, the debate: Is this Gerson fellow on to something or merely on something? Personally, I agree with him on this issue, and think libertarian philosophy is largely idiotic.

I think he's "right" but where has he been? This has been the core ideology of the conservative base for decades. When it comes to economic issues conservatism has hardly been different from Libertarianism.

[Bosstone]

Originally Posted by Princhester

I believe in libertarianism because I believe everyone should be free to do the things that I think it is appropriate for people to do.

That is a hilarious sentence.

[Princhester]

It would be hilarious if it wasn't the way that many people who nominally believe in libertarianism think.

[scabpicker]

Well, it's still hilarious. It's just simultaneously mildly horrifying.

[NamelessKing]

I think the Republican Party is facing a turning point. It can't go on the way it is, and how this election plays out will frame its strategy for the next decade at least. It needs to fracture away from the libertarians and religious right, and then it would attract moderate conservatives and it would actually accomplish political goals that make sense.

[jayjay]

Originally Posted by NamelessKing

I think the Republican Party is facing a turning point. It can't go on the way it is, and how this election plays out will frame its strategy for the next decade at least. It needs to fracture away from the libertarians and religious right, and then it would attract moderate conservatives and it would actually accomplish political goals that make sense.

The more likely post-lose strategy is that the party will just say "OMG! Mitt wasn't conservative enough!" and jump headlong off the cliff that we thought they were already falling down from.