John DerbyshireA reader who, if not disgruntled, is certainly very far from being gruntled:
Mr. D ? As a 'young intellectual conservative' mulling over factions in the coming Big Conservative Brouhaha, I'm thinking of jumping the USS GOP in favor of the Libertarian party. 3 quick reasons
* It's ideologically coherent. Or, at least, built on a strong foundation of promoting individual liberty and, y'know, actually deferring to the Constitution.
* It's 'cool'. Libertarians are generally viewed as either uncompromising personal freedoms/open market zealots, or in the case of those just looking for a political party that justifies their bad behavior, party animals. Both are preferable to the 'sexually repressed bigoted fundamentalist freakshow' image the Republican party now engenders, thanks largely to the media and, well, Republicans in general lately.
* Compassionate conservatism sucks. I don't want a holy-roller welfare state any more than I want a degenerate welfare state.
I'm not under the illusion that we're somehow going to see the end of the two-party system, and of course I take pause with some of the nuttier Libertarian policies, but what on earth is nuttier than Republicans nationalizing swaths of the economy hither and thither?
Right now, the Republican brand is in shambles, mainly having ignored its own principles. The party that most unabashedly protects those principles I hold paramount ? individual liberties, respect for the Constitution, and free markets ? is the Libertarian party. Either way, I suspect conservatives will be out in the wilderness for a while, and if you're going to be a bear, you might as well be a grizzly.Hmm. As the parent of two teenagers, I come out in hives when someone tells me something is "cool." As for "sexually repressed bigoted" etc.; I thought Sarah Palin kicked that pretty decisively into the ditch, as an emblem ? I hope she won't mind my saying so ? of happy reproductive vigor in the framework of traditional companionate marriage. And if it's "freakshow" you want, check out some of the lefty blogs. "Fundamentalism" is just American religion, and always with us. It does no great harm that I can see, and some of its strains ? Mormonism, for instance ? are wonderfully encouraging of good citizenship and reproductive success. Libertarianism ought anyway to be able to make some kind of appeal to fundamentalists. Liberty includes tolerance of religious diversity: that is almost the first thing it meant in these United States! Why that wouldn't appeal to religious minorities of all sorts, beats me.
I certainly agree about "compassionate conservatism." I came in for some obloquy on this very blog a few years ago for calling it "turkey poop," but in retrospect I think I was too kind. At least one of its aspects ? the determination to show kindness to poor people by making it easier for them to buy houses, by chucking sane credit standards out the window ? contributed mightily to our current economic mess. And there are certainly people in the GOP who think our error has been that we weren't "compassionate"
enough. In fact that is probably George W. Bush's thinking, and John McCain's too. I'd like to see the GOP get its green-eyeshade image back; but alas, green eyeshades in the kind of deep recession we are entering are snowflakes in hell, politically. We must hunker down and look to the future.
For political power ? i.e. for actually getting anything done ? third parties are a poor bet. There's a lot to be said for sticking with the devil you know, and hoping to trim his horns.
Although, if Sarah were to defect to the Libertarian Party ?
[For more on libertarianism, check out
my recommendation that libertarians take a leaf from Stalin's book.]