The GOP today seems to combine the economically vicious parts of libertarianism and none of the more reasonable rights parts (like Randian support for abortion rights) and the socially vicious parts of the religious fanatics - the bishops anti-abortion and reproductive rights stance with none of their support for the poor stance. Ryan is a perfect example.
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.
I think what we’re seeing is the big business faction - which is organized - co-opting the disorganized libertarians. The business guys point out to the libertarians that they have similar views on deregulation (even if their philosophies for reaching this position differ) so the libertarians should vote with the business guys. But it’s the business agenda not the libertarian agenda that’s being advanced. On issues where they differ - like government spending - it’s business interests not libertarian interests that’ll carry the day.
That’s why I favor a constitutional amendment banning robots.
The notion that party leaders shape the content of their political coalition has things exactly backwards. The GOP will promote the issues that effectively mobilize enough of the right-side of the electorate to win elections, just as the Democrats do on the left-side. Right now, that moves the GOP toward libertarianism because they’ve lost or been fought to a standstill on Conservative social issues (gay rights, capital punishment, overturning Roe v. Wade, school prayer, intelligent design, sex ed, contraception, etc.) but largely won battles on libertarian social positions (gun rights, affirmative action, school choice, ).
The GOP’s economic policy has been essentially libertarian for a while now–i.e., cut taxes, get rid of regulations, and especially toss those regulations that limit fossil fuel development.
And foreign policy has largely returned to it’s historical status as non-partisan.
On any particular issue, Iran, Afghanistan, China, etc., Romney basically agrees with Obama’s actual policies, notwithstanding the various pathos-based appeals he’s trying to make.
The future of the party is easy to predict. Either low taxes and cheap gas and guns is a winning message, or the GOP will figure out a way to take a significant chunk out of the Democratic coalition by co-opting an issue the way the Democrats co-opted crime, free trade, and most recently, anti-terror policies. Education policy seems ripe for the picking. Immigration coulda been, though it seems like Obama might retain that one.
Education policy would be a key issue to grab, but the Republicans seem to think education is evil and not something to embrace. Anything more than “Learn what your parents want you to learn and no more” is anathema to them. Not really a winning way to address the issue, IMO.
Yes, well, unfortunately, that’s a problem too, because the last Administration left the phrase/concept of “compassionate conservatism” in rather bad odor, just like it left everything else it touched.
Actually, it was the Iraq War, GWOT, etc., that destroyed the GOP in the 2000s.
In real life, however, all of that is manifestly not true of the social democracies of Europe; and some of them have actual Communists in their parliaments.
Likewise with Karl Marx, of course.
The Libertarian Party already exists – why do we need two?
. . . practically everybody.
That’s a reasonable view of who does control things. They co-opt the Christians for the same reason they co-opt the libertarians.
Yeah, but the characters in Das Kapital were more realistic.
The rich depend on the poor to do what can be done cheaply, but they rely on everybody else to do literally every other thing that needs to be done. The genius of the libertarian strain is that it convinces people that it’s everybody else who needs the rich, rather than the other way around.
Well they need those compassionate conservatives he wants to exclude to get into office in the first place. If they were just an alliance of libertarians they’d be just like the actual Libertarian Party, unelectable.
To distinguish it from the all-too-common form of conservative who rails out vehemently against any form of compassion. Like, I dunno… Hm, can anyone give me some examples, here?
Rush, Savage, Beck, pretty much the whole of RW talk radio . . .
Do they realize that? That’s the question.
I agree with this. The sooner the Republican Party becomes a fringe organization the better.