Goodbye to All That One More Time
Mona has a “The contemporary Republican Party is no home for libertarians” piece starting from the Republican Party’s repudiation of libertarian Bob Smither in Texas. Smither’s from the conservative end of the Libertarian Party, and has promised to caucus with the GOP if elected – he’s running to fill Tom Delay’s old seat, for which Texas Law prevents the Republican’s from getting a candidate on the ballot. Nevertheless the Texas GOP is pushing a write-in candidate with a comically unsuitable name for such a candidacy. Mona gives them credit for sincerity, though:
These people despise and repudiate libertarianism, and openly embrace all manner of intrusive, big government, liberty-contracting measures. Whether the dissing of Smither constitutes evidence for this loathing of Team Hayek or not (and there could be factors at play in Texas other than hostility to Smither’s libertarianism), the evidence that the contemporary GOP is hostile to conservatives of the Barry Goldwater persuasion is overwhelming. As is the evidence that the Republican Party has mutated into a putridly authoritarian, statist monster.
To which I can only say: Word. Not that I ever saw much value in the Republican Party even in those halcyon days of Fall 1994, when Reason magazine was at least cautiously hopeful that the new GOP Congress would mean that the era of small government was beginning.
Jon Henke writes that the Sekula-Gibbs write-in candidacy means, in practice, that “the Texas GOP, in a fit of pique (and, perhaps, of ego), has decided that they’d rather see a liberal Democrat in Congress than a conservative Libertarian.” David Boaz thinks that’s a trend. He writes of de facto Republican support for Joe Lieberman’s Senate candidacy:
Only if you believe that continuing to support the war in Iraq outweighs all other issues combined can a conservative reasonably support Joe Lieberman. And apparently a lot of Republicans and conservatives are willing to toss aside his commitment to high taxes, higher spending, more regulation, and entitlement expansion in order to get that vote for Bush’s war.
See also Radley Balko. I’ll offer one cavil: aside from nominal support for Roe v. Wade, Lieberman’s status as not just hawk but faith-based scold makes him a pretty good contemporary Republican.
Past that, I have a certain rueful sympathy for the GOP devils. The war in Iraq has swallowed American politics because the war in Iraq and what it augurs are overridingly important. If you believe strongly in the war, it only makes sense that you’d support the Party that started it for you. If you reject the war, the assumptions that led to it and the implications that follow from it, you’ll reject that same Party and President. Many of us dovish libertarians now embrace politicians we’d never have had much use for because of the war and constellated issues (civil liberties etc.). War swallows up lesser distinctions. That, God help us, is what so many people like about it.
Comment by thoreau —
August 27, 2006 @ 10:03 pm
War swallows up lesser distinctions. That, God help us, is what so many people like about it.
Priceless.
Trackback by Inactivist —
August 27, 2006 @ 10:07 pm
Jim Henley speaks words of wisdom in a salute to Mona…
In a post praising Mona’s post about the GOP and libertarians, Jim Henley offers some words of wisdom about war:
…
Comment by Michael —
August 28, 2006 @ 12:00 am
Smither was breaking lockstep unity. He was running against Tom Delay. The Sugarland Republicans don’t cotton to that. They also didn’t select any of the three candidates who ran against Tom in the Republican primary or the popular local Republican mayor who registered for the write-in slot without anointment at the altar.
I’m thinking the plan is to write off 2006 and come back gunning in 2008 with “We wuz robbed!”
Two other things. Shelly Sekula-Gibbs has an advantage in Texas in that her last name ends in an ‘a’. For better or worse, that’s important in Texas politics. The Republicans have been looking for a winner with that characteristic for some time.
And according to Project Vote Smart, Nick was in the 37th percentile matching conservative issues, which certainly is a difference for Sugarland, where Tom DeLay was in the 91st percentile, however it’s a few points more conservative than Joe Liberman on the same studies.
And yet, Nick is labelled, both in this election and the previous one, as “a liberal extremist“. Whatever. I’m wondering when, if ever, the tactic of automatically modifying the noun “democrat” with “liberal” will start to either fade or backfire. “If you assclowns are the alternative, maybe I should be a liberal…”
Re-elect Jimmy Carter.
Trackback by BuzzTracker.com —
August 28, 2006 @ 6:55 am
Featured on BuzzTracker…
…
Comment by Uncle Kvetch —
August 28, 2006 @ 8:17 am
aside from nominal support for Roe v. Wade, Lieberman’s status as not just hawk but faith-based scold makes him a pretty good contemporary Republican.
Thank you for that. I’m coming at this from the left, but the whole “Aside from the war, he’s really very liberal!” meme is a pernicious one that needs to be smacked down hard.
Comment by Andrew Olmsted —
August 28, 2006 @ 8:46 am
Bleh. Can we kick ‘em all out and start over?
Comment by Eric Scharf —
August 28, 2006 @ 9:35 am
I have zero first- or second-hand knowledge of Texas politics, but if Henke is right, doesn’t the above calculus seem more legitimate if the Texas GOP is looking at who’d they rather run against in two years (and isn’t that an appropriate perspective for a state (or a national) party)? Libertarians should be flattered that Republicans are so afraid that a one-term Libertarian congressman might prove so attractive (and/or incorruptible) that they’d rather risk a vote for Speaker Pelosi than let the camel’s nose in.
(OT aside: Love the new Comments Preview functionality)
Comment by just sayin' —
August 28, 2006 @ 11:02 am
WRT Lieberman, the GOP doesn’t support him because they’re so happy about his GWOT postion that they’re willing to look past most of his other votes. They want him to be the Zell Miller of the next few of election cycles – the old “the Democrat Party is so irresponsible that even Democrat Joe Lieberman says …” ploy. He’s a useful prop to them.
Remember, the Rove level operatives don’t care about the substance of any of it – small government, GWOT, whatever. They just want to stay in power.
Trackback by Kuff's World —
August 28, 2006 @ 1:28 pm
Libertarians for Smither…
The title of this blog post shouldn’t come as a surprise to anyone, but being a small-l libertarian and being a member of the big-L Libertarian Party are two different things. As noted before, the Libertarians have recognized that the……