September 03, 2012

Wisdom from the Libertarian Party

As seen on the Libertarian Party's Facebook page:

Republican Party, you did this to yourself, you managed to alienate such a huge percentage of the populace that you can't beat a guy who has alienated an almost equal percentage of the populace.

You just couldn't leave social issues alone. You just couldn't end the wars. You just couldn't actually prove to be fiscally responsible, or even understand the Fed's effect on the economy.

Don't blame us when you don't get elected.. blame yourselves.

As many regular Colossus readers may know, I consider myself more libertarian (or, as I prefer, "classical liberal") than pretty much anything else, and as such, the above really hit me. Really -- how is it that a guy with the economic record that Boss Obama has is ... deadlocked with the GOP nominee?

Despite the fact that mainstream media indeed has gone overboard in overblowing insane statements like those made by Missouri's Todd Akin, the fact that there are Akins out there in the GOP -- and the fact that they seek to legislate their beliefs -- let's face it: it's a big problem for the GOP. Yes, the Democrats' and the MSM's "GOP War on Women" prattle is 99% ideologically motivated drivel. But, there are many women across the political spectrum who say to themselves "If the GOP is for less government, then why do they want more of it when it comes to my personal life?"

Of course I recognize that abortion is a very delicate issue. It's certainly not, as dogmatists on both sides of like to make it, an "always or never" proposition. The vast majority of the American public have a middle-of-the road approach to the subject. Just take a look at these recent polls. The first question asks, "Do you think abortion should be legal under any circumstances, legal only under certain circumstances, or illegal in all circumstances?" A total of 82% believe in the first two. When it comes to various exceptions for allowing abortion, 88% believe it should be allowed when the woman's life is in danger, 83% when the woman's physical health is in jeopardy, and 83% in cases of rape or incest. On that last one, 76% of Republicans agree. (90% of Democrats agree, and 81% of Independents.)

Clearly, the above is a problem for the socially conservative segment of the GOP -- the segment which has maintained a strict pro-life platform for some thirty years now. Now I know that party platforms do not actually mean much anymore, and that the plank on abortion the way it's written can leave wiggle room for the exceptions noted above, especially at the state level. (Which, by the way, would be what would happen if Roe v. Wade was overturned -- a return to letting states decide, not a comprehensive ban on abortions altogether, which is a common --usually liberal -- misconception.) Mitt Romney has stated that he believes in exceptions in the case of rape, incest and the health and life of the mother, putting him clearly in line with the plurality of Americans' views. His running mate's views are another matter, however, and tie directly into the Libertarian Party's point.

Seven years ago I posted why I was against the Iraq War. And while I do not believe that the US should vacate all its foreign obligations, especially where danger still lurks (such as towards Israel and South Korea, to name two), and shouldn't look the other way when countries which harbor those who attacked us (Afghanistan), why should we commit the lives of our own boys and our tax dollars to "nation-building" to countries that don't want it (or aren't ready for it)? And continue to maintain bases/troops in regions which are clearly capable of taking care of themselves (NATO countries, Japan)? A GOP which seeks to claim the high ground on fiscal responsibility, yet is engaged across the globe in a mostly out-dated Cold War posture, has definite trouble reconciling the two, no?

Remember: Voters tossed out 1994's historic Republican Revolutionaries after a measly dozen years. How come? Because these revolutionaries gave way to those who spent money like drunken sailors. They expanded government (Bush's No Child Left Behind, anyone?). The GOP only recently regained power (in the House, at least) because ... Boss Obama was spending money like a drunken sailor.

So, 'ya get it yet, Grand Old Party? People want you to be true to your word. Be fiscally prudent. Be consistent about less government. You're tied in the polls with this train wreck of a chief executive because people are wary -- they don't quite believe you mean what you say. They want proof, based on one of the oldest maxims of all: Actions speak louder than words. It might be wise to listen a bit more to your libertarian-minded brethren.

Posted by Hube at September 3, 2012 12:08 PM | TrackBack

Comments  (We reserve the right to edit and/or delete any comments. If your comment is blocked or won't post, e-mail us and we'll post it for you.)

I agree with all you said. However, even with all of that being said, a Libertarian candidate, who has zero chance of winning, does nothing but hurt the Republican. In a race that is looking as tight as this, every vote will count in the swing states. Even if the Lib. candidate is only taking say 2%, that could be the difference. So, if this situation were to play out and cost Romney the election, I will indeed blame Libertarians!

Posted by: R. Anders at September 3, 2012 02:21 PM

true to the above....but I would also blame the huge percentage of americans that get this...just plain stupid!!!!! Or as Rush would say, the democrats pander to morons.

Posted by: cardinals fan at September 3, 2012 02:38 PM

R. Anders: On that I agree with you. My post is more about the need of the mainstream GOP to adopt more of a libertarian view/policy.

Posted by: Hube at September 3, 2012 05:35 PM

Excellent column ! Although not a Libertarian Party member, I have parked my vote there in several Prez races ( including 2000 & 2004 & 2008 ) . This year, though, it has to be Romney. Romney has explicitly promised to support the repeal of ObamaCare ; he supports domestic oil drilling ; he opposes Putin ; he supports Israel ; he opposes Mahometan terrorism ; his name is not Carter, Reagan, Bush, nor Obama ; he is a Baby Boomer ( like Clinton & Bush, Jnr, ) & is PROUD to be a Baby-Boomer American . He has real-world business experience, to boot. He would be a fine replacement for the current far-left Post-Baby-Boomer at 1600 Penn Ave. Thank You !

Posted by: dragon/dinosaur at September 5, 2012 09:08 AM

You make great points and I agree with much of what you said. The problem for me now is that the Democratic platform is sooo extreme. I do think Romney is doing his best to stick with the economy as the issue.

Posted by: Sara Noble at September 6, 2012 09:50 PM

You have to admit most people, at least conservatives believe many abortions as done are for the convenience of the woman; every individual case is different but the reason liberals feel (and that's the operative word) this way is for emotional reasons and not practical ones...I'm a conservative but I believe most women today don't appear hamstrung by anything other than what conveniences them or not...and the differences between Northeastern country club elitist Republicans (RINOs) is vastly different than honest to goodness conservatives and those progressives who label themselves as Democrats.and I should know because that was where I came from until I joined the military in my mid-twenties...the fact is if our military is to be factored in, we should play the game to win and nothing to what constitutes a Republican, I wouldn't discount quite a few categories that are available..

Posted by: Kristen at September 7, 2012 04:06 PM