Will the GOP be libertarian or authoritarian?

Timshel

New member
Authoritarian. There is little doubt about it.

http://dailycaller.com/2013/12/02/will-gop-be-libertarian-or-authoritarian/

Conservatives should remember what happened last time promoting or defending war became a primary focus. Under George W. Bush, the debt almost doubled and government grew at a rate surpassed only by Obama.


Any conservative still scratching their head over how this happened can stop scratching.


The focus for Republicans at that time was defending the Iraq War, the Patriot Act, warrantless wiretapping, waterboarding, “enhanced interrogation tactics,” indefinite detention and other Dick Cheney heirlooms. It wasn’t just that these things distracted conservatives from shrinking government — support for war and an anti-civil liberties agenda had supplanted small government among conservatives’ priorities. The time in between September 11, 2001 and the rise of the Tea Party, conservatism simply became something else.


Today, Tea Party Republicans have led in opposing intervention in Libya and Syria, have criticized Obama’s drone policies and spearheaded an uprising against warrantless spying on American citizens. Under a Democratic administration that often resembles Bush-Cheney on national security, the American right of 2013 has in many ways done a 180 from its 2003 self.


The old Bush guard has bemoaned this rise in libertarian influence in the GOP for a few years now. It’s easy to understand why: It is a philosophy that contradicts, and is largely incompatible with theirs.




When it comes to foreign policy and civil liberties, the opposite of libertarianism (a preference for liberty over security) might be authoritarianism (security takes precedent over liberty). Republicans who want less war and government spying on citizens are anathema to Republicans who’ve long preached the virtues of war and a powerful national security state. It’s a stalemate: Libertarian Republicans and most conservatives thought Obama wanting war with Syria was absurd. Hawks thought it absurd the president didn’t want war enough.
 
Authoritarian. There is little doubt about it.

http://dailycaller.com/2013/12/02/will-gop-be-libertarian-or-authoritarian/

Conservatives should remember what happened last time promoting or defending war became a primary focus. Under George W. Bush, the debt almost doubled and government grew at a rate surpassed only by Obama.


Any conservative still scratching their head over how this happened can stop scratching.


The focus for Republicans at that time was defending the Iraq War, the Patriot Act, warrantless wiretapping, waterboarding, “enhanced interrogation tactics,” indefinite detention and other Dick Cheney heirlooms. It wasn’t just that these things distracted conservatives from shrinking government — support for war and an anti-civil liberties agenda had supplanted small government among conservatives’ priorities. The time in between September 11, 2001 and the rise of the Tea Party, conservatism simply became something else.


Today, Tea Party Republicans have led in opposing intervention in Libya and Syria, have criticized Obama’s drone policies and spearheaded an uprising against warrantless spying on American citizens. Under a Democratic administration that often resembles Bush-Cheney on national security, the American right of 2013 has in many ways done a 180 from its 2003 self.


The old Bush guard has bemoaned this rise in libertarian influence in the GOP for a few years now. It’s easy to understand why: It is a philosophy that contradicts, and is largely incompatible with theirs.




When it comes to foreign policy and civil liberties, the opposite of libertarianism (a preference for liberty over security) might be authoritarianism (security takes precedent over liberty). Republicans who want less war and government spying on citizens are anathema to Republicans who’ve long preached the virtues of war and a powerful national security state. It’s a stalemate: Libertarian Republicans and most conservatives thought Obama wanting war with Syria was absurd. Hawks thought it absurd the president didn’t want war enough.

I used to be the latter, but now the former. I regret going into Iraq. I still think taking out Saddam was the right thing, I just didn't expect us to bungle it. I also believe he did have WMD and moved them.

However, I am more and more moving toward the George Washington doctrine of foreign affairs. Of course the neocons and the neolibs call that "isolationism" which one has to wonder, what is so bad about not fucking with everyone?

We have enough energy here in this country to be a net exporter, so why bother with China?

Now of course China has us by the nut sack because they have so much of our debt. I worry less about them calling the notes as I am about them one day saying "No bonds for us"
 
So to avoid being RINOs, conservatives should co-op the Democrat positions on:

*weakening defense
*gay marriage
*legalizing drugs creating more welfare cases unable to hold jobs
*abortion on demand

What exactly would be left of Republicanism worth belonging to?
 
So to avoid being RINOs, conservatives should co-op the Democrat positions on:

*weakening defense
*gay marriage
*legalizing drugs creating more welfare cases unable to hold jobs
*abortion on demand

What exactly would be left of Republicanism worth belonging to?

How are you defining weakening defense? (one example being do you see those who are more isolationist as weak on defense?)
 
So to avoid being RINOs, conservatives should co-op the Democrat positions on:

*weakening defense
*gay marriage
*legalizing drugs creating more welfare cases unable to hold jobs
*abortion on demand

What exactly would be left of Republicanism worth belonging to?


Right, Republicans will tolerate big government as long as they get some of their favorites forms of it. You are just a bunch of hardcore authoritarians.
 
It depends on one's defintions. One can be for smaller government without being an aspiring anarchist.
 
It depends on one's defintions. One can be for smaller government without being an aspiring anarchist.

But you are not for smaller government. You want a big government that invades our bedrooms, bodies and engages in endless wars. You are a first class authoritarian.
 
But you are not for smaller government. You want a big government that invades our bedrooms, bodies and engages in endless wars. You are a first class authoritarian.

I don't want a government that engages in endless wars.

I don't want a government that is willing to sit by and allow people decided which innocents live or die.

I don't know what the bedroom hysterics are supposed to mean.

If you want the right to kill an innocent person out of convenience, you have no right to be calling anyone else an authoritarian.
 
Back
Top