Huntsman: GOP Is ‘Devoid Of A Soul,’ Needs ‘Strong Dose Of Libertarianism’

[Donerail]

Let's not all be dense. Huntsman is not talking about adopting objectivism. He is talking about adopting libertarian social attitudes- live and let be. This is something people shouldn't be finding objectionable. Talking about tolerating gay marriage, marijuana legalisation, et cetera. Repealing DOMA. He's talking sense, as usual. There's no need to twist his words.

That's not libertarianism. It's liberalism.

In the case of those types of issues, what is the difference?

Libertarianism is about (generally irrational) hatred of government. It has nothing to do with social liberalism and support for progressive social policies. Libertarian politicians in the US and worldwide are not generally supportive of liberal social positions. Taking Ron Paul as the American libertarian avatar, his opposition to gay rights, immigration reform, abortion and euthanasia along with support for the death penalty are clearly anti-liberal. The only issue on which the libertarian movement and liberalism are aligned is drug policy, and even there the libertarians take a doctrinaire stance while the liberals support drug legalization/decriminalization for practical reasons. Even ignoring Ron Paul in particular, at best libertarian politicians are divided on these issues, and for the most part they just don't care.

Of course, I don't think Huntsman is talking about anything other than gay rights here. Which makes it particularly ridiculous; libertarian and libertarian-aligned politicians are hardly noted for being pro-gay.

Paul isn't a libertarian, he's a paleocon. And to interpret the stances of one man as representative of the entire group is ridiculous. Quotes from Gov. Gary Johnson (L-NM):

"It should be left up to the woman. If my daughter were pregnant and she came to me and asked me what she ought to do, I would advise her to have the child. But I would not for a minute pretend that I should make that decision for her or any other woman."
"A woman should be allowed to make her own decisions during pregnancy until the point of viability of a fetus."
"[I have] come to believe that the death penalty as a public policy is flawed."
"I don't want to put one innocent person to death to punish 99 who are guilty."
"Government should not impose its values upon marriage. It should allow marriage equality, including gay marriage."
"My vision of the border with Mexico is that a truck from the United States going into Mexico and a truck coming from Mexico into the United States will pass each other at the border going 60 miles an hour. Yes, we should have open borders."

You can't have libertarianism without social tolerance; otherwise it's just straight conservatism, and thus not libertarianism.

[Uncle Albert/Admiral Halsey]

Let's not all be dense. Huntsman is not talking about adopting objectivism. He is talking about adopting libertarian social attitudes- live and let be. This is something people shouldn't be finding objectionable. Talking about tolerating gay marriage, marijuana legalisation, et cetera. Repealing DOMA. He's talking sense, as usual. There's no need to twist his words.

That's not libertarianism. It's liberalism.

In the case of those types of issues, what is the difference?

Libertarianism is about (generally irrational) hatred of government. It has nothing to do with social liberalism and support for progressive social policies. Libertarian politicians in the US and worldwide are not generally supportive of liberal social positions. Taking Ron Paul as the American libertarian avatar, his opposition to gay rights, immigration reform, abortion and euthanasia along with support for the death penalty are clearly anti-liberal. The only issue on which the libertarian movement and liberalism are aligned is drug policy, and even there the libertarians take a doctrinaire stance while the liberals support drug legalization/decriminalization for practical reasons. Even ignoring Ron Paul in particular, at best libertarian politicians are divided on these issues, and for the most part they just don't care.

Of course, I don't think Huntsman is talking about anything other than gay rights here. Which makes it particularly ridiculous; libertarian and libertarian-aligned politicians are hardly noted for being pro-gay.

Paul isn't a libertarian, he's a paleocon. And to interpret the stances of one man as representative of the entire group is ridiculous. Quotes from Gov. Gary Johnson (L-NM):

"It should be left up to the woman. If my daughter were pregnant and she came to me and asked me what she ought to do, I would advise her to have the child. But I would not for a minute pretend that I should make that decision for her or any other woman."
"A woman should be allowed to make her own decisions during pregnancy until the point of viability of a fetus."
"[I have] come to believe that the death penalty as a public policy is flawed."
"I don't want to put one innocent person to death to punish 99 who are guilty."
"Government should not impose its values upon marriage. It should allow marriage equality, including gay marriage."
"My vision of the border with Mexico is that a truck from the United States going into Mexico and a truck coming from Mexico into the United States will pass each other at the border going 60 miles an hour. Yes, we should have open borders."

You can't have libertarianism without social tolerance; otherwise it's just straight conservatism, and thus not libertarianism.

Abortion really shouldn't be the issue that defines social liberalism vs. social conservatism. If life actually does begin at conception, then it shouldn't be socially illiberal to be against abortion. Of course, if life doesn't begin at conception, then social conservatives and social liberals should both be uniformly in favor of legalized abortion. There are reasons why conservatives should be pro-choice or why liberals should be pro-life, depending on your conception of when life begins.

[Keystone Phil]

Phil has got the gist of what Huntsman means.

This is typically the case, yes. As is the tone deafness of red avatars.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

He's right.

[CatoMinor]

I think many people here are making the mistake of confusing tea-party GOPers with libertarians.  


Sjoyce, Paul is indeed libertarian. A Paleo-con would be more protectionist, the opposite of Paul.

And PR, yes, I would like to believe I have a soul.

[Donerail]

Sjoyce, Paul is indeed libertarian. A Paleo-con would be more protectionist, the opposite of Paul.

Paleolibertarian?

[Simfan34]

Let's not all be dense. Huntsman is not talking about adopting objectivism. He is talking about adopting libertarian social attitudes- live and let be. This is something people shouldn't be finding objectionable. Talking about tolerating gay marriage, marijuana legalisation, et cetera. Repealing DOMA. He's talking sense, as usual. There's no need to twist his words.

That's not libertarianism. It's liberalism.

In the case of those types of issues, what is the difference?

Let's be honest. Do you think Jon Huntsman would have said the GOP needs a "Strong Dose Of Liberalism"?

Also, you'd best be served by reading the original Torygraph article. Great journalism from them, as usual: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/republicans/9771589/Republican-party-is-devoid-of-a-soul-says-Jon-Huntsman.html

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Supporting gay marriage doesn't make you a libertarian.

[Wyoming Conservative]

Let's not all be dense. Huntsman is not talking about adopting objectivism. He is talking about adopting libertarian social attitudes- live and let be. This is something people shouldn't be finding objectionable. Talking about tolerating gay marriage, marijuana legalisation, et cetera. Repealing DOMA. He's talking sense, as usual. There's no need to twist his words.

That's not libertarianism. It's liberalism.

In the case of those types of issues, what is the difference?

Libertarianism is about (generally irrational) hatred of government. It has nothing to do with social liberalism and support for progressive social policies. Libertarian politicians in the US and worldwide are not generally supportive of liberal social positions. Taking Ron Paul as the American libertarian avatar, his opposition to gay rights, immigration reform, abortion and euthanasia along with support for the death penalty are clearly anti-liberal. The only issue on which the libertarian movement and liberalism are aligned is drug policy, and even there the libertarians take a doctrinaire stance while the liberals support drug legalization/decriminalization for practical reasons. Even ignoring Ron Paul in particular, at best libertarian politicians are divided on these issues, and for the most part they just don't care.

Of course, I don't think Huntsman is talking about anything other than gay rights here. Which makes it particularly ridiculous; libertarian and libertarian-aligned politicians are hardly noted for being pro-gay.

Ron Paul is strongly opposed to the death penalty. The majority of Libertarians are anti-drug war and anti-death penalty and pro-gay marriage well divided on abortion. Paul is not anti-gay ether he voted for the repeal of DOMA like SPC said and hes stated he believes any individual should be allowed to do whatever they want on marriage, Paul is libertarian on all social issues but abortion which he is right-wing on. There's also Gary Johnson whos strongly pro-gay marriage. The main Libertarian politicians are pro-gay, anti-death penalty, pro-weed and so are the vast majority of libertarians.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

My hunch is he is trying to win over Paul supporters as it appears Rand will not be running for President in 2016 due to his reelection campaign.

[Cobbler]

My hunch is he is trying to win over Paul supporters as it appears Rand will not be running for President in 2016 due to his reelection campaign.

This is probably the case. More specifically, he's trying to go for the youth vote, which tends to be more moderate and/or libertarian.