In my podcast this week, I took Rick Santorum to the woodshed for his stance on libertarianism. Rick said this:
“I am not a libertarian, and I fight very strongly against libertarian influence within the Republican Party and the conservative movement. I don’t think the libertarians have it right when it comes to what the Constitution is all about. I don’t think they have it right as to what our history is, and we are not a group of people who believe in no government.”
If that’s not bad enough for you, he said this to NPR in 2006:
One of the criticisms I make is to what I refer to as more of a libertarianish right. You know, the left has gone so far left and the right in some respects has gone so far right that they touch each other. They come around in the circle. This whole idea of personal autonomy, well I don’t think most conservatives hold that point of view. Some do. They have this idea that people should be left alone, be able to do whatever they want to do, government should keep our taxes down and keep our regulations low, that we shouldn’t get involved in the bedroom, we shouldn’t get involved in cultural issues. You know, people should do whatever they want. Well, that is not how traditional conservatives view the world and I think most conservatives understand that individuals can’t go it alone. That there is no such society that I am aware of, where we’ve had radical individualism and that it succeeds as a culture.
Imagine that. Being an American and thinking government should just leave people alone? Crazy, right? Can Rick show me where the Constitution gives moral busybodies in DC the power to legislate my behavior in my bedroom? And don’t give me this, “Well, you can’t kill someone in your bedroom” stuff. You know what I’m talking about.
Now, let’s contrast what Rick said about with this quote from Dutch, aka Ronald Maximus, aka Ronald Reagan:
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.
Now, I can’t say that I will agree with all the things that the present group who call themselves Libertarians in the sense of a party say, because I think that like in any political movement there are shades, and there are libertarians who are almost over at the point of wanting no government at all or anarchy. I believe there are legitimate government functions. There is a legitimate need in an orderly society for some government to maintain freedom or we will have tyranny by individuals. The strongest man on the block will run the neighborhood. We have government to insure that we don’t each one of us have to carry a club to defend ourselves. But again, I stand on my statement that I think that libertarianism and conservatism are travelling the same path.
Now, you Santorum supporters, tell me how I support him when what he says is in direct opposition to what Reagan thought and is essentially advocating greater government involvement in the lives of Americans.
I think we have a weak Republican field this go around. Not sure why more real candidates didn’t jump in.
Because there is only one REAL and HONEST candidate, and anyone who is Real and Honest supports him. Ron Paul.
The sticking point on a lot of libertarian thought is the dope.
The problem I have is similar to the one I have with the other labels — I am neither democrat or Democrat. I am republican but not Republican, I am agree with a lot of the libertarian view, by no way am I a Libertarians.
The Libertarians seem at the core to be anarchists, and I reject that.
Those of us who are republicans believe that neither extreme (democratic or anarchy) work for us (they work well for the elites).
Those of us who are republicans believe that representative government under tight control and with severely limited power served well and would serve well again.
And, by the way, I wonder if that is what Santorum was trying to say.
Santorum’s just not the right guy. We need someone who will actually cut the budget, and I sure as heck don’t want another moral scold as president; I get enough of that from Obama.
There are two candidates left with the will and an actual record of budget-cutting: Ron Paul and Newt Gingrich. For my money, Gingrich wins hands down.
Oh my God, you have to be kidding, Gingrich? hahahaa XD
I think you should clarify what he means by his statements, use your talents and links that you’ve gained as a blogger. Do that instead of comparing two sets of statements with little context around them.
“ we are not a group of people who believe in no government.””
That came straight out of the quote, and I can’t say I disagree with that.
“Well, that is not how traditional conservatives view the world and I think most conservatives understand that individuals can’t go it alone. That there is no such society that I am aware of, where we’ve had radical individualism and that it succeeds as a culture.”
From Ronnie: “ I believe there are legitimate government functions. There is a legitimate need in an orderly society for some government to maintain freedom or we will have tyranny by individuals.”
Once again, quoted from your article. Name a culture where ‘radical individualism’ has succeeded to disprove his point. Now, if we were in the middle of a nation-wide revival and people were making proper decisions, I could see your point. However, we’re in the middle of a social decline (if your previous articles on the OWS movement haven’t portrayed that enough).
Also, I think he often lays it out quite nicely that social conservatism is better for society in general. That most poor children are from single-parent families (generally mothers). Children without fathers have a MUCH higher chance of ending up doing drugs, in jail, joining gangs, and so on.
To end my comment, look at Reagan’s entire record, not just 1 quote, before making this comparison. He did some AWESOME things that helped bring conservatism back from the abyss in this country, but let’s not try and say that government got smaller under Reagan, either. You’ve already told me that you don’t care for him and see him as a ‘big government conservative’. Are you ignoring his other statements that are very similar to the budget cuts RP has given?
I think it is incorrect to say libertarians are anarchists. Laws are needed to protect the people from the government and other people. Laws should not be protecting a person from themselves when they are sane, consenting adults. Every time I see a person write that “Libertarians are for anarchy”, I think about how the comment, “Tea Partiers are racist” is used in the same ignorant baseless way.
The founders understood that it is not a balance between left and right, but a balance between tyranny and anarchy. They knew too much government would lead to tyranny, and too little government would lead to anarchy. Hence, their philosophy on government was to create the Constitution which limited the powers of the federal government so it wouldn’t be tyrannical, yet provided the federal government and the states with enough power to protect our freedoms from each other, thus delivering us from anarchy. This is the libertarian philosophy. The modern day republican and democrat lean too far toward statism. Half of their philosophy is statism, whether it be statism in the economy (democrat point of view) or statism in social issues and foreign policy (republican point of view). One must realize that a centralized government cannot have any portion of it that is statist, otherwise it will consume the whole in the search for power.