Huckabee contra libertarianism

Wow. That's sensible.

No wonder I voted for him. ;) Seriously, though, out of all the candidates, Huck making statements like this made me realize exactly what the Republican party has been missing. I had been suspecting something wasn't there, but couldn't figure it out - but its this compassion, a care for others that is bigger than "do it all on your own".

While I really appreciate what Huck said, I think he defined this "new libertarianism" within Republicanism quite poorly. I get the sense that he's referring to the Ron Paul movement, but Ron Paul has said *hundreds* of times that he doesn't want to turn any body out in the street or stop helping people who've become dependent on the government (via Medicare or SS, etc). He's simply stated those government programs are insolvent, and he wants us to perform a reality check before it's too late. His plan is to dramatically cut spending *elsewhere* (bringing our troops home) and use those funds to pay for a transition period where we can let young people opt out of these insolvent programs while still making sure that the elderly and needy who are dependent on the government get taken care of. It sounds quite sensible to me. Anyhow, if by "new libertarianism" he's referring to the Paulists, then I think he's set up a straw man.

I can just see the radio blowhards shaking their heads at this one. Huck is the most naturally gifted pol the Republicans have right now. I would like to see him on the ticket with McCain. I am not sure if it would be enough to get me out of the "sweep the bums out" mode, but if Obama/whoever prove weak in the general campaign I would like to have an option. All of this would be contingent on Huck's allowing the release of his tapes from when he was preaching.

Steve

The libertarian viewpoint is strong in the logic of its abstract principles. Problem is, real-life people don't live on abstract principles, or even care about them much. In real life, abstract purity of principle isn't always much help. This may be why liberatianism is so appealing to college students (like me in the 1970's) but is unappealing now that I have kids, etc.

Kristen M.,

I'm pretty sure Huckabee was refering to the Club for Growth with possibly a veiled reference to Rush Limbaugh.

I think Huck is way off here. He wants to blame libertarians for the GOP's problem with voters, but the GOP has problems based on the way in which it has governed the last 8+ years (and of course the War), not because of the limited-government types in the party who really haven't exerted that much real influence on the GOP in Washington DC.

Compassionate Conservatism has been the watch-word for the GOP on domestic policy these past 8 years and it is much closer to what Huck wants than it is to libertarianism. When the GOP was on a roll in the 90s it was much closer to limited government policies like Welfare Reform. Bush grew the government more than any libertarian would ever advocate, even when you forget the war and look just at domestic initiatives, and the GOP in Congress became comfortable and selfish in power and went along for the ride.

So to blame the GOP's struggles on libertarians is a fantasy. The reason this conservative rejected Huck is that he reminded me too much of Bush.

You can take the cops off the streets and just quit funding prison beds. Are your neighborhoods safer?

No serious libertarian has argued that government shouldn't play a role in law enforcement. The problem they point to is the fact increasing government involvement in the economy distorts incentives and creates dangerous dependency. Take a look at New Orleans. The city is simply unfeasible in its current location. We'll rebuild the place at taxpayer expense and see it destroyed come the next hurricane. Is that a smart thing to do? Should we really set ourselves up for the next crisis?

Look at social security and medicaid. Helping old folks with their expenses sounds good, but it's created an unsustainable pyramid scheme. People no longer have any incentive to have kids to take care of them in their old age, but you need another generation to support the one retiring. We try to patch this up with mass immigration, but that's only kicking the can down the road.

Of course, the biggest problem with the GOP is that let the same world-saving impulse Huck exalts get us into a war that will cost us well over a trillion dollars when all is said and done.

Kristen, I don't think he's really talking about Ron Paul per se, more about the movement that Ron Paul represents. I find Paul himself far more reasonable and moderate than I find many of those who support him. I'd vote for Paul almost as quick as I'd vote for Huck. It's just that the movement that has coalesced behind Paul has a pretty strong ideological disposition which I think Huck criticizes quite adroitly.

It's sort of the opposite number if Bush Republicanism: instead of destroying fiscal discipline in order to maintain government programs, it's destroying government programs in order to maintain fiscal discipline. Both are ideological positions that prize the purity of their vision over any pragmatic concerns of real life workability.

I imagine that, personally, Huck and Paul find a great deal that they agree upon. Paul may draw the line a bit further on the small government side

Article 1 - The Legislative Branch
Section 8 - Powers of Congress

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

I'm guessing that everyone who is for Huckabee finds arguments such as Charles Murray's in Losing Ground preposterous. In other words, the idea that government aid helps destroy social bonds and increases poverty is silly. I'd be interested to know who people are reading in order to justify this increased national spending and its efficacy. These sources could lead me, for one, to a better understanding of where Huckabee is coming from. I still find Murray's basic ideas about government spending persuasive, so I guess I'll be looking for another party. Good luck with the Great Society Redux.

I think it's amusing how, in the past week or two, high-visibility Republicans are starting to attack libertarianism by name. Maybe they're starting to get a little worried. Wouldn't the best thing to do would be to try to find common ground with Ron Paul? I assume a large number of Paul's supporters will swing to Bob Barr (if not Obama), and if Barr runs a strong campaign in the libertarian-leaning Mountain West states, McCain is absolutely screwed. Not like he has much of a shot anyways.

If Huckabee gets some hair transplants, he's the next president after one of these lame-brain, anti-America socialists get their four-years to sicken this country. Hopefully the demise of both the old world GOP and the perverted leftist Democrats will be the result of a Huckabee white house.

Great summary, Bill. I have noticed that points 2, 3 and 5 are especially prevalent among people who call themselves libertarians today. I would add that in many ways it is also an egocentric worldview.

I think many Christians who claim libertarian political views do not realize that they are grouping themselves in with people who believe 'it is all about me and my freedom to do whatever I want and to hell with the common good.'

The Apostle Paul addresses freedom in Christian context:

You, my brothers, were called to be free. But do not use your freedom to indulge the sinful nature; rather, serve one another in love. The entire law is summed up in a single command: "Love your neighbor as yourself."

I believe Huckabee is on to something about Republicans. Many in the Republican party today seem to be socially liberal at worst/indifferent to social issues at best and first and foremost concerned with money.

Also, Huckabee's heart reminds me of Reagan's when it comes to the sanctity of life issue, the issue that is at the real hub of our nation's soul. He is one of the few in national politics today that are unapologetically and unashamedly pro-life.

"The real question today is not when human life begins, but, What is the value of human life? The abortionist who reassembles the arms and legs of a tiny baby to make sure all its parts have been torn from its mother's body can hardly doubt whether it is a human being. The real question for him and for all of us is whether that tiny human life has a God-given right to be protected by the law—the same right we have.

Malcolm Muggeridge, the English writer, goes right to the heart of the matter: "Either life is always and in all circumstances sacred, or intrinsically of no account; it is inconceivable that it should be in some cases the one, and in some the other."

Abraham Lincoln recognized that we could not survive as a free land when some men could decide that others were not fit to be free and should therefore be slaves. Likewise, we cannot survive as a free nation when some men decide that others are not fit to live and should be abandoned to abortion or infanticide. My Administration is dedicated to the preservation of America as a free land, and there is no cause more important for preserving that freedom than affirming the transcendent right to life of all human beings, the right without which no other rights have any meaning."

Excerpts From: "Abortion and the Conscience of the Nation" by Ronald Reagan.

Here's an etymology of the word

conservative
as a modern political tradition, conservatism traces to Edmund Burke's opposition to the Fr. Revolution (1790), but the word conservative is not found in his writing. It was coined by his Fr. disciples, (e.g. Chateaubriand, who titled his journal defending clerical and political restoration "Le Conservateur"). Conservative as the name of a British political faction it first appeared in an 1830 issue of the "Quarterly Review," in an unsigned article sometimes attributed to John Wilson Croker. It replaced Tory (q.v.) by 1843, reflecting both a change from the pejorative name (in use for 150 years) and repudiation of some reactionary policies. Extended to similar spirits in other parties from 1845.
"Strictly speaking, conservatism is not a political system, but rather a way of looking at the civil order. The conservative of Peru ... will differ greatly from those of Australia, for though they may share a preference for things established, the institutions and customs which they desire to preserve are not identical." [Russell Kirk (1918-1994)]

When those claiming to espouse Christian beliefs come crashing down on libertarianism, I like to point out a few things that God himself had to say to us.

"You shall not steal."

"You shall not covet your neighbor's house; you shall not covet your neighbor's wife, nor his male servant, nor his female servant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor anything that is your neighbor's."

Simply put, in a free society like the US, where we the people are indirectly responsible for the amount of taxation laid on others, voting to take from others against their wishes is tantamount to theft. This is not a "give unto Ceasar what is Ceasar's," situation because there is no Ceasar. In a free society there is only us. If you wish to assume the role of Ceasar, that is your free will (Which by the way, is the greatest gift God gave us) but search your soul, and see if you believe Ceasar is in heaven.

Christ did not say, "take from others, and be generous with what is not your own." Christ taugh to be generous of yourself. Christ did not say, "force others to act in a way which I find pleaseing." Christ asked us to act in a manner which pleases me. If God himself is unwilling to force men to act as he desires, how can you belive that he wishes you to?

The United States is not a missionary church, and it should not be treated as one. God warned us not to attempt to make a heaven on earth, instead asking us to work for his glory as individuals.

Just a few thoughts after some prayer and reflection.

Thank you for reading.