# Is Michael Gerson Right About Republicans? **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [September 24, 2012, 9:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-michael-gerson-right-about-republicans/635665 "2012-09-24T09:42:32Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 13\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![Zakalwe](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/zakalwe/32/270_2.png) [@Zakalwe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zakalwe)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2012, 1:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-michael-gerson-right-about-republicans/635665/81 "2012-09-26T01:53:10Z")
> [@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… ---
**Author:** ![gamerunknown](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/6bbea6/32.png) [@gamerunknown](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gamerunknown)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2012, 2:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-michael-gerson-right-about-republicans/635665/82 "2012-09-26T14:14:07Z")
> [@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](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catallactics) have been eradicated completely. Just as the anarchy of production will end and people will reach self-actualisation through subsumption by the state. ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2012, 6:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-michael-gerson-right-about-republicans/635665/83 "2012-09-27T06:49:23Z")
> [@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](http://www.amazon.com/The-Myth-Rational-Voter-Democracies/dp/0691138737/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1348727105&sr=8-1&keywords=myth+of+rational+voter) (whose book I haven’t gotten around to reading) but tonight I read half of **ianzin** ’s [free pdf](http://www.ianrowland.com/index.php?p=Free) 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. > [@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. > [@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. > [@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. > [@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. > [@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](http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2012/09/paul-krugman-asks-a-question-on-the-austrian-hatred-of-fractional-reserve-banking-paper-money-etc-weblogging.html) 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. ---
**Author:** ![Princhester](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3e96dc/32.png) [@Princhester](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Princhester)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2012, 8:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-michael-gerson-right-about-republicans/635665/84 "2012-09-27T08:24:29Z")
> [@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. > [@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. ---
**Author:** ![gamerunknown](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/6bbea6/32.png) [@gamerunknown](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gamerunknown)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2012, 9:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-michael-gerson-right-about-republicans/635665/85 "2012-09-27T09:28:08Z")
I found [this article](http://mises.org/daily/1790) on Ayn Rand enlightening. ---
**Author:** ![WillFarnaby](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/willfarnaby/32/514_2.png) [@WillFarnaby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WillFarnaby)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2012, 3:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-michael-gerson-right-about-republicans/635665/86 "2012-09-27T15:00:26Z")
> [@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. ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2012, 1:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-michael-gerson-right-about-republicans/635665/87 "2012-09-28T01:28:25Z")
> [@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](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradigm) 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 ---
**Author:** ![Smellyalater](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ce7236/32.png) [@Smellyalater](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Smellyalater)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2012, 5:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-michael-gerson-right-about-republicans/635665/88 "2012-09-28T05:54:56Z")
> [@Derleth](#): > > [Michael Gerson](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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](http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/michael-gerson-a-republican-mind-set-without-promise/2012/09/20/798901f8-0344-11e2-91e7-2962c74e7738_story.html):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. ---
**Author:** ![Bosstone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/22d042/32.png) [@Bosstone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bosstone)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2012, 6:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-michael-gerson-right-about-republicans/635665/89 "2012-09-28T06:08:49Z")
> [@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. ---
**Author:** ![Princhester](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3e96dc/32.png) [@Princhester](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Princhester)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2012, 8:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-michael-gerson-right-about-republicans/635665/90 "2012-09-28T08:05:01Z")
It would be hilarious if it wasn’t the way that many people who nominally believe in libertarianism think. ---
**Author:** ![scabpicker](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/scabpicker/32/8268_2.png) [@scabpicker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/scabpicker)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2012, 8:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-michael-gerson-right-about-republicans/635665/91 "2012-09-28T08:59:38Z")
Well, it’s still hilarious. It’s just simultaneously mildly horrifying. ---
**Author:** ![NamelessKing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/b38774/32.png) [@NamelessKing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NamelessKing)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2012, 8:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-michael-gerson-right-about-republicans/635665/92 "2012-09-29T08:01:04Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![jayjay](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jayjay/32/6765_2.png) [@jayjay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jayjay)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2012, 4:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-michael-gerson-right-about-republicans/635665/93 "2012-09-29T16:00:01Z")
> [@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. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-michael-gerson-right-about-republicans/635665.md?page=4)