The Iowa caucuses highlighted a little-known fact about the Republican Party: it is really a coalition of three different groups. First and best-known are the “conservatives,” represented by Rick Santorum and the 25 percent of Iowa caucuses who voted for him. Conservatives tend to be fiscally conservative, but are more reliably socially conservative, meaning they tend to oppose such things as gay rights, abortion, and recreational drugs.
The second group is the libertarians, represented by Ron Paul and the 21 percent of the caucuses who voted for him (although Gary Johnson, who was ignored by the media and the party, is closer to being a true libertarian). Perhaps even more than conservatives, the libertarians are hard-core fiscal conservatives. But they are social liberals, favoring gay rights, legalization of recreational drugs, and (for the most part) legalized abortions.
The difference between conservatives and libertarians was brought out in the late 1960s, when David Nolan created the Nolan chart, defining political beliefs along two axes instead of the traditional “liberal-conservative” axis. Nolan’s chart pointed out that the fact that someone was fiscally conservative or liberal did not necessarily predict whether they would be socially conservative or liberal.
This led a group called Advocates for Self Government to publish the world’s smallest political quiz, whose ten simple questions allowed people to place themselves in the liberal, conservative, or libertarian (socially liberal and fiscally conservative) groups. Nolan called the fourth group–people who were socially conservative and fiscally liberal–“populist” even though there is no party or political movement currently going by that name.
Dire and critical data could be effectively imparted to gatherings of people through this bulk SMS service provider can additionally give an office by which you can send SMS to various people at a time the relation will break down in the corroder of the court with signs of both. viagra sales canada It is necessary for both the mind viagra 25mg and the body like guided imagery and hypnotherapy can help manage stress that comes with lupus. One simply requires consuming the medicine once a day with water and the cheapest viagra pills rest is taken care by the pill itself. Even though the best option levitra on line discover to find out more now would be dependent upon the cause and the severity of the stomach inflammation.
When the world’s smallest political quiz was introduced, Cato Institute founder Ed Crane pointed out that there should probably be a third axis having to do with foreign affairs. At one extreme of this axis, people oppose U.S. involvement in foreign military operations except in self-defense or when directly attacked. At the other extreme, people support U.S. military actions for humanitarian reasons or to promote democracy in countries now ruled by dictators.
Advocates of the latter view call themselves neoconservatives and form the third group that makes up the Republican Party. This is a strange name because historically it was liberals, starting with Teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson, who advocated U.S. military action that was not strictly for self defense, while it was conservatives such as Henry Cabot Lodge and Robert Taft who opposed such actions. It was only after the Viet Nam war that people on the left tended to oppose military actions that were not strictly for self defense while people on the right began to support them. The name neoconservative is even stranger considering that the first people to use that name were social and fiscal liberals who considered themselves hawks.
George W. Bush famously campaigned for president saying he did not support “nation building” (a neoconservative concept), but then allowed the neocons to run his administration. Today, Mitt Romney and the 25 percent of Iowa caucus voters who support him are the best representatives of the neocon wing of the Republican party. Like the original neocons, Romney is a fiscal liberal–supporting government health care–and a social liberal–supporting such concepts as smart growth–and a foreign affairs hawk.
As the Antiplanner has previously noted, the real agenda of the tea parties was to toss the neocons out of the Republican Party and rebuild the Reagan coalition of conservatives and libertarians. The successful nomination of Mitt Romney as the Republican’s presidential candidate would be a failure of the tea parties and that coalition. If that happens, conservatives and libertarians would be better off allowing Obama to win a second term while they concentrate their efforts on having Tea Party Republicans take control of Congress.
I usually agree with the Antiplanner but not when it comes to the tea party. My personal experience with a local group of tea party members is that they are angry, angry at government, angry at taxes, just angry and obstructionist with no coherent plan except they want less taxes and less government, but cannot actually show the cost savings of the parts of government they want to cut. Unfortunately this has not transformed itself into constructive plans but just obstruction of government. For example tea party members in the house obstructed plans to increase the deficit even if it meant a government default or shutdown which would have been more damaging and expensive in the long term. A more responsible stand would have been to offer a long term budget that cut certain parts of government to gradually eliminate the budget deficit. Unfortunately this is unlikely to result in lower taxes as even cutting 20% of Federal government spending will still result in a deficit. Tea party advocates don’t have the numbers to show where they can even realistically cut 20% of government spending. I feel the tea party has fulfilled a useful role in highlighting the budget deficit and increasing government liability, but now it is time to move on.
As far as Romney goes, he is apparently supported by business groups who can now donate to PACS who will simply outspend anyone they don’t want. Romney’s formula of reducing taxes was what Reagan and then George W. Bush achieved and resulted in huge deficits and exploding debt. Advocating lower taxes and no cuts in military spending is simply unrealistic and irresponsible. Romney and the Republicans don’t seem to have learned the lesson that just cutting taxes doesn’t balance the budget, they will have to make huge unpopular cuts in programs that will get them thrown out of office, or they will have to continue to let the debt rise.
Perhaps the Antiplanner is correct that a Republican congress and Obama as president would restore us to the 1990’s situation when Clinton vetoed Republican tax cuts and Republicans wouldn’t let Clinton spend more. At least then we ended up with a balance budget that George W. Bush and the Republican party immediately thew away, cut taxes, increased spending and started the cycle of borrow and spend we are now caught up in.
Americans by and large want socialism, but not under that name. Almost half of all American households pay no federal income tax, and lately they’ve been paying reduced social security taxes. No one, especially the Tea Party people will give up these benefits.
This gives Obama and the Democrats a very large built-in base, and Obama needs only convince a few independents to win in November. The result, of course, will be a further slide downwards to European style, soft-authoritarian socialism.
The coming of Sharia will solve all these problems. Fortunately, I’ll be dead.
Maybe if the tea party could just sit down a minute and have a cup of tea, they’d calm down long enough to collect their thoughts on what precisely it is they should prioritize and talk about. The tea party tends to simply grab whomever can yell the loudest. I do agree that spending cuts must coincide with the taxes they intend to lower especially with defense spending.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fgWAxPUHDFY
Still in regards for foreign intervention, I don’t think the U.S. should stand idly by while genocide has been ravaging Africa since 1994. There are eight steps to genocide…..1) Classify who they are. 2) Symbolize what they are. 3) Dehumanize them (remove their rights, citizenship) 4) Organize the opposition. 5) Propoganda (show your supporters what you’re doing is right). 6) Preperation. 7) Extermination…….. 8) Deny it happened…
America is the poster child for blame. If we attempt to do something intended to be beneficial we’re called invaders even by Europe and Asia or even fellow Americans. If America does nothing, Europe and Asia berate us for not doing anything. You’re getting yelled at regardless of which way you turn. It’s like that carnival game, shooting the duck.
The Iowa caucuses highlighted a little-known fact about the Republican Party: it is really a coalition of three different groups.
I think the educated minority in this country is well aware that the GOP has lost its way. Simply look at who the group of third-raters are pandering to. The true conservatives were driven out of the party during the BushCo/Rove reign. The Kochs and whoever is left running the show used the TeaPerty to garner some votes, but that has now backfired.
That is: it is very clear that the GOP no longer has the historical strong unity and has splintered. The latest ad buy from Adelson’s group only confirms that again. This is not to say the Dems are an effective counter or choice so please no cheap attempts to claim otherwise.
DS
Any Tea Partier who votes for Rick Santorum, and there are apparently quite a few of them, must have adopted a new slogan: “Get Government off of our backs and into our bedrooms.”
Correct me if I’m wrong but the Libertarian movement and the Tea Party movement are connected loosely. It seems that most Tea Party representatives in the house are overtly religious and focused on social issues. They also love the word cut. Libertarians such as Paul have a more sophisticated explanation for proposed “cuts” and hold true to the values of liberty (the social conservatives believe in liberty for us not for them).
The problem for all challengers in presidential elections is that these days it’s not about ideas, it’s about winning the game. Romney is seen as the most “electable.” Will republicans sacrifice everything they claim to uphold to go for the “electable” guy? Probably. It’s exactly what liberals and progressives did with Kerry in 04. Actually, I would argue that Kerry sacrificed everything he upheld to become the electable guy.
“But they are social liberals, favoring gay rights, legalization of recreational drugs, and (for the most part) legalized abortions.”
I don’t know why Antiplanner brought legalisation of drugs into this – unless he confused legalisation with liberalisation. Legalising drugs is a hard-line conservative position.
rmsykes wrote: “will be a further slide downwards to European style, soft-authoritarian socialism. The coming of Sharia will solve all these problems. Fortunately, I’ll be dead.”
I don’t really recognise my own country as suffering from ‘soft-authoritarian socialism’. As for Sharia (roads), yes, we have roads, and if you stand in front of a bus, then yes, you are likely to die.
If you meant Shari’ah, then I would say that Muslims in the UK make up only a few percent of the population. They don’t want Shari’ah either, at least in the criminal law way that you mean, rather than it’s correct meaning. The ones wanting criminal Shari’ah number about 200, of whom only about 20 can be bothered to protest in public (bless).
All of these groups – El Margarine, Fuzz Butt, The Savlon Sect, Bozo Haram, and all of the rest – are a joke. They are, however, beloved of the media, and particularly those looking for an easy story to tell. These groups then achieve an appearance of strength which is completely at odds with reality.
Nodrog wrote:
“Any Tea Partier who votes for Rick Santorum, and there are apparently quite a few of them, must have adopted a new slogan: “Get Government off of our backs and into our bedrooms.—
Yes, particularly given what the term ‘teabagging’ actually means.
The Kochs and whoever is left running the show used the TeaPerty to garner some votes,
If the Kochs were “running the show”, the party would have a stronger libertarian bent. That is clearly not the case.
Correct me if I’m wrong but the Libertarian movement and the Tea Party movement are connected loosely. It seems that most Tea Party representatives in the house are overtly religious and focused on social issues. They also love the word cut.
The difference is that libertarians walk the walk when it comes to personal freedoms.
I don’t know why Antiplanner brought legalisation of drugs into this – unless he confused legalisation with liberalisation. Legalising drugs is a hard-line conservative position.
“Conservative” has a different contemporary meaning in the US than in the UK. In the US context, liberalisation and legalisation have the same meaning when applied to controlled substances (drugs). Many who self-identify as conservative tend to favor the continued criminalization of these substances.
Speaking of the analysis Francis did, we have this little gem:
Americans by and large want socialism, but not under that name. Almost half of all American households pay no federal income tax,
This is a craven talking point whose mencacity was pointed out at least a year ago. Believing mendacious talking points is no way for civil society to discuss fixing our ills.
DS
As the Antiplanner has previously noted, the real agenda of the tea parties was to toss the neocons out of the Republican Party and rebuild the Reagan coalition of conservatives and libertarians.
Oh, no. Not at all. The genesis of the tea party was to reduce government spending. Period.
In the ensuing years, that goal has become muddied, but it still remains the driving force. A lot of people call themselves tea partiers now — they want government spending cut but, well, maybe they’d like this or that, too. Some of them will even vote for Santorum.
That doesn’t change what created the movement. And if it isn’t strong enough to elect a “tea party” president, that doesn’t mean it’s dead, either. It may turn out that while not yet a national force, congress-critters should still be wary. In any given district. . .
paul wrote:
I usually agree with the Antiplanner but not when it comes to the tea party. My personal experience with a local group of tea party members is that they are angry, angry at government, angry at taxes, just angry and obstructionist with no coherent plan except they want less taxes and less government, but cannot actually show the cost savings of the parts of government they want to cut.
I disagree with the above (in part).
Many so-called “Tea Party” types (which I have heard of observed) appear to me to be comfortably retired white people who want to continue to draw their Social Security payments every month and be able to show a Medicare card when they go to for medical treatment (and some of them assert “keep the federal government away from my Medicare!”).
nordrog wrote:
Any Tea Partier who votes for Rick Santorum, and there are apparently quite a few of them, must have adopted a new slogan: “Get Government off of our backs and into our bedrooms.â€
Strongly agreed.
“The genesis of the tea party was to reduce government spending. Period.”
That was one purpose. Don’t forget that Ron Paul supporters were the genesis of the Tea Party movement; it was a grassroots organization that raised $6 million in a money bomb on the anniversary of the Boston Tea Party for the doctor. Ron Paul advocates for more than reduced spending. Civil liberties are equally important, as is ending our empire, and a strong emphasis on sound money (which the Cato libertarians don’t advocate; they accept state control of money substitutes).
But the Tea Party was hijacked by neo-cons, people who want to use state licensing to prohibit people from entering into what has been for most of human history a religious matter. They’re the same as the people who seized and used government power to keep black and whites from marrying. Or Asians and whites. Or anyone but whites and whites. So much for the first amendment.
But yeah, people will say Ron Paul is a racist. It’s his Achilles heel. As a candidate, he’s far from perfect. His message is what resonates. The Austrian School is rising.
Rand Paul will probably seek the nomination in 2016. It will be interesting to see who the Dems put up against him and to see if he abandons libertarianism and the Austrian School to court neocons. Hopefully, neocons will wake up and realize government should not be used to keep people from being able to enter into private, religious contracts. Hopefully they’ll see our empire is not sustainable and threatens to destroy our prosperity and wealth. Hopefully Obama realizes that, too. And hopefully he’ll stop using drones to kill innocent civilians in Pakistan. Hopefully he won’t bomb Iran. He ran on hope, but I have little hope he’ll do the right thing.
Frank wrote:
Ron Paul advocates for more than reduced spending. Civil liberties are equally important, as is ending our empire, and a strong emphasis on sound money (which the Cato libertarians don’t advocate; they accept state control of money substitutes).
Wonder how much money Dr. Paul’s medical practice has accepted from health insurance and welfare programs funded by federal and state taxpayers?
“Like the original neocons, Romney is a fiscal liberal–supporting government health care–and a social liberal–supporting such concepts as smart growth–and a foreign affairs hawk.”
I think Gingrich fits the role a bit better. In addition to smart growth Gingrich is a big backer of High Speed Rail, not just in CA but the entire US…
NY Times…
“Mr. Gingrich may be the most outspoken Republican presidential candidate when it comes to his support of high-speed rail. He has spoken and written admiringly of China and France, and how far ahead of the United States they were when it comes to high-speed rail. He has opined that high-speed train lines would make sense in Florida and California — places the Obama administration sought to build them — and in the Northeast, among other places. And he has spoken of a role for government to help build a national rail network.”
“Newt Gingrich, a former speaker of the House, has written books and given speeches about the importance of high-speed rail in the United States, and he supported a study for a high-speed line from Atlanta to Chattanooga, Tenn., sought by local boosters when he was in Congress.”
“Mr. Gingrich outlined his views in his 2008 book, “Real Change: From the World That Fails to the World That Works,†saying that the California, Florida and the Northeast Corridor from Boston to Washington are all “very conducive to this kind of high-speed train investment.—
“…with no coherent plan except they want less taxes and less government, but cannot actually show the cost savings of the parts of government they want to cut. Unfortunately this has not transformed itself into constructive plans but just obstruction of government.”
This is the essence of the difference.
There never has been a “coherent plan.” There have been plans for government spending ranging from promoting technologies or practises, but assertion of “planning” qua planning is no more nor less that assertion that expenditures or restrictions will have the intended effects of the expenditure/restriction. This is the curse of the planning class.
In capitals and boardrooms, thousands of Captain Queeg’s sit, analyzing with mathematical precision the intentions of their policies, forgetting that admidst all this planning and fury is a simple truth; markets are too big to beat. We may have numbers and values, but the Brownian motion continues, oozing past the barricades of government expenditure and restriction.
It must be frustrating for the planning class to see that there is a significant number of Americans who choose not to believe in the plans of the planning class.
I’ve planned my day, today. But if needed, those plans can be tossed aside if necessary. What is the best use of my time today? I think I know, but if conditions change, should I stick to my plan, for the sake of the plan?
Would that be rational behaviour?
.
“Wonder how much money Dr. Paul’s medical practice has accepted from health insurance and welfare programs funded by federal and state taxpayers?”
Can’t win with this question. If he takes it, he’s a hypocrite. If he doesn’t, he’s an insensitive racist, classist bastard.
Truth is, he practiced what he preached, including not billing people too poor to pay who qualify for medicaid or medicare.
This stuff is all readily available on the Internet. That link is just the first of half a million results that answer your question. Even Wiki has a line referenced by two reliable sources: “As a physician, Paul routinely lowered fees or worked for free and refused to accept Medicaid or Medicare payments.”
Anything else?
The objective of the tea party is despotism.
In capitals and boardrooms, thousands of Captain Queeg’s sit, analyzing with mathematical precision the intentions of their policies, forgetting that admidst all this planning and fury is a simple truth; markets are too big to beat.
False premises: they keep coming!
DS
Frank said:
“Wonder how much money Dr. Paul’s medical practice has accepted from health insurance and welfare programs funded by federal and state taxpayers?â€
Can’t win with this question. If he takes it, he’s a hypocrite. If he doesn’t, he’s an insensitive racist, classist bastard.
Truth is, he practiced what he preached, including not billing people too poor to pay who qualify for medicaid or medicare.
This stuff is all readily available on the Internet. That link is just the first of half a million results that answer your question. Even Wiki has a line referenced by two reliable sources: “As a physician, Paul routinely lowered fees or worked for free and refused to accept Medicaid or Medicare payments.â€
Anything else?
THWM: Though not every one can afford to do that for free either.
You think socialism is fine for roads.
Though use some public funds for public transit and guys all start whining!