Ronald Reagan, circa 1975:
If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism. I think conservatism is really a misnomer just as liberalism is a misnomer for the liberals-if we were back in the days of the Revolution, so-called conservatives today would be the Liberals and the liberals would be the Tories. The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is.
Mike Huckabee, circa 2008:
The greatest threat to classic Republicanism is not liberalism; it’s this new brand of libertarianism, which is social liberalism and economic conservatism, but it’s a heartless, callous, soulless type of economic conservatism because it says “look, we want to cut taxes and eliminate government. If it means that elderly people don’t get their Medicare drugs, so be it. If it means little kids go without education and healthcare, so be it.” Well, that might be a quote pure economic conservative message, but it’s not an American message. It doesn’t fly.
My how times have changed.
June 3rd, 2008 at 6:55 pm
At the same time, I wonder how libertarianism has changed in that time, or its followers. It seems like many who follow libertarianism sound more like they support anarchy, and fail to bring rise to any reasonable debate, instead sounding like one of the stereotypical Ron Paul followers. There was a time where libertarianism used to appeal to me; but I’ve encountered more libertarians that can be hostile and contrary to my views and I’ve been driven away from it. Yet, I consider myself to be someone who follows the Reagan school of conservatism.
Ronald Reagan was a devout Christian; seems like most libertarians are atheist, agnostic, or otherwise opposed to “organized religion”. They seem to have an attitude that we should greatly limit our business with and in other countries; yet, Ronald Reagan took communism and Russia head on, and was a very strong proponent for a strong national defense. Libertarians are among those pushing for an end to the War on Drugs, but Reagan pushed for stronger tactics to be used in ridding society of drugs.
Libertarianism may be “the heart and soul of conservatism”, but it is not the entirety of it, and I’m sure that Ronald Reagan would agree with Mike Huckabee (as many problems as I’ve had with Huckabee) that libertarianism as it stands today does not fit the Reagan conservative model.
June 3rd, 2008 at 8:35 pm
Doug, bravo! Excellent post.
CR - Not all Paul supporters are “stereotypical” of Ron Paul himself. I presume you as a true conservative don’t disagree with 95% of what Paul says, right? The only issue is probably the undeclared Iraq war. As for Ron Paul, he is a very devout Christian who can quote scripture and commentaries faster than Mike Huckabee can run and beg the Arkansas legislature to raise more taxes. To boot, Ron Paul was cited by Reagan as one of the republican pillars of national defense who cared most for our troops.
In fact, in all his years in office, Ron Paul’s views have never changed and that is why perhaps, Ronald Reagan endorsed him. Can any other presidential candidate say that? Ron Paul felt that President Reagan weakened during his presidency because he became surrounded with too many pragmatists and it diluted our message. To wit, Bennett was supposed to dismantle the Department of Education. I had folks tell me in response to a speech that they’d actually changed their minds on abolishing the department, Constitution be damned!
And this nonsense of a federal war on drugs came about because of Nancy who was pro-choice. It wasn’t Reagan’s idea. Ron Paul, like any true conservative, is all for the federal government following the Constitution. We just find it difficult to say we should dump the federal war on drugs because it sounds like we’re legalizing it. What a waste of resources. Let the states do it.
So yes, Ron Paul attracted a rather large following of libertarians who preach immoral anarchy. However, key to understanding why you would agree with them is pretty easy to explain. There are always two questions to answer. First, the question of right and wrong. Second, who has the power to decide that first question. Conservatives have failed to focus on the second and most important question. We don’t have to agree with the immoral anarchist on the first question in order to find agreement that the federal government has no such power. See?
Let me be even more arrogant. I’ll prove that Reagan would disagree with you. Give me a chance to explain why. Doug left off a beginning part of the Huckabee quote: “Now the Democrats are beginning to come back to [the] center, and the Republicans are becoming libertarians.”
If Reagan met Huckabee, I’m rather confident Reagan would have called him a false prophet. Reagan would have responded to Huckabee’s statement above (and Doug’s quote) with the following:
Need I go on? The libertarian model today, lacking the intellectual leaders of the 1950s and 60s is still far closer to the Reagan ideal than Huckabee’s non-Conservative, non-Christian political science.
June 3rd, 2008 at 10:57 pm
CR UVa,
Libertarianism has not changed in any significant respect.
It’s conservatism that has changed. The rhetoric about limited government and individual autonomy may still be there, but it’s quite obvious after the Presidency of George W. Bush and the incompetence of the Republican leadership in Congress and the Senate over the past seven years that any committment to actually living up to those ideas no longer exists.
Instead we get theocratic authoritarians like the Huckster, who think that government exists to make us do things for our own good.
That’s not the GOP I signed up for back in 1986, and if people like him are the future, I’m gone.
June 4th, 2008 at 2:03 pm
This is quite a bit to respond to, to give a few thoughts.
“And this nonsense of a federal war on drugs came about because of Nancy who was pro-choice.” I’m certain that, regardless of Nancy’s views on this, Ronald Reagan would still take responsibility for making the push in the War on Drugs. Ronald Reagan was also pro-life (considering that life is the first right guaranteed in the Declaration of Independence, I always questioned Ron Paul when he said he was pro-life but that he basically would do nothing about it). This is an irresponsible suggestion because it says that Ronald Reagan was irresponsible for the choices he made. Influenced by his wife or not, he made those choices, and I’m sure he would be man enough to admit it.
“So yes, Ron Paul attracted a rather large following of libertarians who preach immoral anarchy.” And yet Ron Paul did not have the strength to say that he would not stand as a symbol for their views. As Doug himself stated before, Bob Barr was able to do this. Why wasn’t Ron Paul? This is not to compare modern conservatism or libertarianism, but it does make me wonder about Dr. Paul himself.
“Let me be even more arrogant. I’ll prove that Reagan would disagree with you.” You’re right, you were more arrogant. That is an interesting speech you wrote, but stating that that is what Reagan would say in a near authoritative way is not proof.
“Libertarianism has not changed in any significant respect.” I would say in one way, it has. As I stated before, it seems like for every The Oath or Doug Mataconis, there are a dozen (perhaps simply more vocal) people who follow the description I put forward. Politics does change with time. Certain ideas are timeless; guaranteed freedoms of life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, and some such as the First Amendment. Others are either more modern or have changed over time; the Second Amendment (as arms have evolved over time), abortion, global warming, etc. One thing, however, that I believe many classic liberals have failed to look at is passing on their knowledge. Many sound nothing like Reagan and very little if anything like what you two have stated. Perhaps they are akin to the “far right” and “far left”, being something of extremists in the middle (honestly, I do not know whether you guys consider yourselves to the left, right, in the middle, or otherwise). Libertarianism may not have changed yet, but if this group continues to grow and expand while failing to mature and learn, it is well on its path to change.
And one more thing Doug. I have heard you speak ill of faith a few times before, but highly of Ronald Reagan, and that seems fairly common. As I noted, Ronald Reagan was a devout Christian, and Christianity holds a long history in all American politics. Seems to me that, at least in this one facet, libertarianism is changing. Ronald Reagan clearly understood that both the libertarian and Christian wings of the Republican party were necessary to achieve what he believed, and while libertarians suggest the Republican party left them, seems to me that a lot of libertarians have run rather than fight when the perception suggested to them that Christian conservatives held more power. This again is not to suggest that Huckabee’s views are correct; I disagree with many things he said. But Ron Paul only appears to be on the other extreme to many Republicans. If we want to be truly honest with ourselves, I don’t think Reagan would be looking to favor Huckabee or Paul, but rather (particularly at this point in the presidential election) to unite the party again, and find a way to bridge the gap that has only continued to expand.
June 5th, 2008 at 9:33 am
CR,
What I speak ill of, what I think is detrimental to American liberties, the separation of church and state, and, ultimately, the religious liberties of all Americans are those persons such as Mike Huckabee who quite obviously believe that their faith gives them a moral superiority that requires them to use the power of the state to force their values on the rest of us.
Liberty means giving people the right and the opportunity to make choices for themselves, and accepting the fact that they may sometimes make decisions that we believe to be incorrect or not in their best interests. As long as they don’t do something that harms the life, liberty or property or others, it also means that they should be allowed to live their lives as they want.
You can’t force people to be moral, but it’s also not right to punish them merely because you think what they believe in is immoral. It’s really quite that simple.
And, speaking as someone who has read enough Reagan biographies to fill a bookshelf, I think it’s fair to say that the Ronald Reagan was no Evangelical, nor was he a fundamentalist. Yes, he was pro-life, but he also appointed Sandra Day O’Connor to the Supreme Court. Many religious conservatives didn’t like that one, Jerry Falwell in particular (which gave birth to one of may favorite Barry Goldwater lines by the way).