What would happen if the GOP goes Libertarian?
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 08:35:25 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  Presidential Election Trends (Moderator: 15 Down, 35 To Go)
  What would happen if the GOP goes Libertarian?
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] 3
Author Topic: What would happen if the GOP goes Libertarian?  (Read 15704 times)
President Mitt
Giovanni
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,347
Samoa


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #25 on: August 02, 2009, 01:25:02 PM »
« edited: August 02, 2009, 01:32:15 PM by Giovanni »

I actually think it would look a lot like Ford v. Carter 1976.

That, but Ohio,  and Illinois switch, Texas switches, and Michigan switches. Im also tempted to switch Florida and North Carolina around. I think a lot of those Research triangle moderates would swing to the new GOP.
Logged
Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon
htmldon
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,983
United States


Political Matrix
E: 1.03, S: -2.26

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #26 on: August 02, 2009, 01:31:17 PM »

It depends on what brand or sort of "Libertarian" we are talking about.

I believe there is great success for the Republican Party in promoting the virtue of individual responsibility and less government intervention in the private and public lives of the individual.

However, there is nothing but failure ahead for any Party that falls off the cliff into the realm of hostility to the basic functions of a modern government.   Many people who call themselves "Libertarian" (or conservative) have simply found an ideological dwelling place for their pursuit of selfishness and indecency towards their fellow man.

I'll gladly take a social conservative with a heart for people and God's creation over an ultra-ideological libertarian self-ist who has no concept of being "their brother's keeper".
Logged
○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└
jfern
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 53,612


Political Matrix
E: -7.38, S: -8.36

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #27 on: August 02, 2009, 01:41:20 PM »

They'd mostly get their ass kicked. Sure, there are a few places where they might run better,  like Alpine county California, but mostly they'd get reamed.
Logged
Vepres
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,032
United States
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #28 on: August 02, 2009, 02:02:37 PM »

I'll give you an idea of what I mean by the GOP trending libertarian.

The party mainstream is between +3.00 and +6.00 on economic issues in the atlas political matrix. The party mainstream is between -3.00 and -8.00 on social issues, depending on the region.
Logged
liberalkid
Rookie
**
Posts: 95
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.16, S: -7.65

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #29 on: August 03, 2009, 11:55:34 AM »

a friend of mine put it this way
the GOP was once a three-lleg stool. when in the 80's the Repubs threw the Libertarian/Barry Goldwater people out of the oarty, the stool fell over
more prcisly, they allowwed the Christian Taliban portion to screw over our civil liberties (in the intrest of fairness, almost all Dems did too) and allowwed the ecinomic conservatives to plunder the Tresury with outragious tax cuts, pork, farm subsidies, etc.
allowwwing them would
1. allow the Libertarians and ecinomic conservatives to unite against the Christian conservatives and
2. ally with the social conservatives to stop the ecinomic conservatives from looting and spending like crazy
Logged
pogo stick
JewishConservative
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,429
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #30 on: August 03, 2009, 06:12:19 PM »

How about No. Anti-Libertarian Hackery shifted into high gear.

Dude. The libertarians and the religious right will never thrive without each other.
Logged
President Mitt
Giovanni
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,347
Samoa


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #31 on: August 03, 2009, 06:14:57 PM »

The religious right will drag the GOP down where the Whigs and the Progressives lay today. Young voters today are overwelmingly hostile to the RR. As am I. Its better to cut our losses and get rid of them. If not a Libertarian platform, at least tone down the moralf****try talk.
Logged
5280
MagneticFree
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,404
United States


Political Matrix
E: 6.97, S: -0.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #32 on: August 03, 2009, 09:12:01 PM »

The RR should join the constitution party and go against the green party.
Logged
Rob
Bob
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,277
United States
Political Matrix
E: -6.32, S: -9.39

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #33 on: August 03, 2009, 10:09:54 PM »

Many people who call themselves "Libertarian" (or conservative) have simply found an ideological dwelling place for their pursuit of selfishness and indecency towards their fellow man.

We call those people "Republicans."
Logged
Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon
htmldon
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,983
United States


Political Matrix
E: 1.03, S: -2.26

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #34 on: August 03, 2009, 10:12:43 PM »

Many people who call themselves "Libertarian" (or conservative) have simply found an ideological dwelling place for their pursuit of selfishness and indecency towards their fellow man.

We call those people "Republicans."

Admittedly, there are some who do call themselves Republicans.  Thats why we need more Republicans who don't fit that description.
Logged
Rob
Bob
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,277
United States
Political Matrix
E: -6.32, S: -9.39

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #35 on: August 03, 2009, 10:14:05 PM »

Why do you care? You vote for all Republicans regardless of where they stand on the issues.
Logged
Psychic Octopus
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,948
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #36 on: August 04, 2009, 02:58:14 PM »



Something like this perhaps?
Logged
aaaa2222
yoman82
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 305


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #37 on: August 04, 2009, 09:24:16 PM »

That's nearly the same map I had, but why would SC go Libertarian?
Logged
President Mitt
Giovanni
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,347
Samoa


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #38 on: August 04, 2009, 09:53:30 PM »

That's nearly the same map I had, but why would SC go Libertarian?

You'd be surprised abut SC. They have a sizeable (and growing) Yankee population who are fiscally Conservative and Socially Liberal, a prefect fit for this new GOP. If The SC Gop can grap enough of the Southern White Vote, SC would still go GOP. I disagree about KY, LA, TN, and Missouri though, Unfortunately I think they'd be Democrat strongholds in this Party atmosphere.
Logged
IllinoisFreedomFighter
Rookie
**
Posts: 22
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #39 on: August 13, 2009, 10:13:08 AM »

Libertarians are not Socially Liberal, unless the term socially liberal means something different than the positions modern day Democrats take on social issues.  Gun Right, affirmative action, and the fairness doctrine are an example of just a few issues where libertarians are at odds with social liberals on social issues.  In addition, many libertarians are against abortion, as they see it as murder.  Just because we are united in opposition to the extremely un-American Patriot Act, Military Commissions Act, etc. does not make us allies on social issues.  For the most part, they have even stopped caring about these intrusions on our civil liberties since Barry-O got elected!
Logged
SPC
Chuck Hagel 08
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,004
Latvia


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #40 on: August 17, 2009, 11:27:14 AM »

Libertarians are not Socially Liberal, unless the term socially liberal means something different than the positions modern day Democrats take on social issues.  Gun Right, affirmative action, and the fairness doctrine are an example of just a few issues where libertarians are at odds with social liberals on social issues.  In addition, many libertarians are against abortion, as they see it as murder.  Just because we are united in opposition to the extremely un-American Patriot Act, Military Commissions Act, etc. does not make us allies on social issues.  For the most part, they have even stopped caring about these intrusions on our civil liberties since Barry-O got elected!

Welcome to the forum, IllinoisFreedomFighter! And yes, I agree.
Logged
Fmr. Pres. Duke
AHDuke99
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 24,021


Political Matrix
E: -1.94, S: -3.13

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #41 on: August 17, 2009, 11:43:56 AM »

The GOP doesn't need to go libertarian to regain constiuents on the West Coast and Northeast. It just needs to soften their lines on social issues. The truth is the GOP needs social conservatives to win, but they also need economic conservatives who couldn't care less about abortion, gay marriage and gun issues as well. The GOP has gained the perception as of late as the party of the southern religious nuts, and in turn it has caused them to bleed in the suburban parts of the country which were once GOP strongholds.

How do they do that? Well, I'm not entirely sure, but nominating people like Huckabee and Palin to be the standard bearers of the party isn't a start. If they were to go Libertarian, the party would surely split into two or three minor parties, effectively destroying the GOP.
Logged
fezzyfestoon
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,204
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #42 on: August 17, 2009, 12:43:49 PM »

Duke's right, but I like maps so I made one about where the GOP would gain and lose ground were it to start moving libertarian (assuming those moves aren't drastic).

Logged
War on Want
Evilmexicandictator
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,643
Uzbekistan


Political Matrix
E: -6.19, S: -8.00

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #43 on: August 17, 2009, 12:47:01 PM »

You need to specify what you mean by Libertarian. That could mean one out of ten things, all of them very different. Anyways the GOP should moderate itself not go Libetarian. Right wing economics still isn't that popular and of course being conservative on social issues is a losing battle. Basically they need to be more like Crist.
Logged
Dan the Roman
liberalrepublican
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,458
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #44 on: August 17, 2009, 02:16:15 PM »

In sort of an addendum to what Duke said, I think that Social Conservatism is not a loser. On the contrary, it is a winner provided it is inclusive rather than exclusive. Focusing on traditions, family, and community have appeal to almost all groups. The problem Social Conservatives have currently is that they exclude groups like Gays from that vision.

This is not a necessity. One way the US has avoided class conflict is by steadily expanding the definition of who was elite. In the early 19th century, Italians and Jews did not count as white, and Jews and Catholics would have been excluded from any definition of religious social conservatism. Now we have Jewishconservative promoting Palin and a majority Catholic block on the Supreme.

By the same token, embracing Gay Marriage does not require abandoning social conservatism or even opposition to a "homosexual agenda" generally. It can be seen as an acknowledgment that society as a whole benifits from having people in stable relationships, and at the point at which same-sex couples will be adopting and raising children it makes sense to give as positive an environment as possible. In this sense you could win over a large portion of the Gay Community, even if you continued to find Pride Parades indecent or Hate Crimes laws discriminatory.

Personally I think this is a more likely direction for the GOP than libertarianism. It allows them to keep social conservatives by opening just enough to maintain the potential for a majority.
Logged
War on Want
Evilmexicandictator
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,643
Uzbekistan


Political Matrix
E: -6.19, S: -8.00

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #45 on: August 17, 2009, 02:47:22 PM »

Duke's right, but I like maps so I made one about where the GOP would gain and lose ground were it to start moving libertarian (assuming those moves aren't drastic).


here's my map but this is assuming the GOP stays far to the right on economics:

my map is more optimistic for the Republicans.
Logged
Citizen James
James42
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,540


Political Matrix
E: -3.87, S: -2.78

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #46 on: August 17, 2009, 04:33:17 PM »

It depends on what brand or sort of "Libertarian" we are talking about.

I believe there is great success for the Republican Party in promoting the virtue of individual responsibility and less government intervention in the private and public lives of the individual.

However, there is nothing but failure ahead for any Party that falls off the cliff into the realm of hostility to the basic functions of a modern government.   Many people who call themselves "Libertarian" (or conservative) have simply found an ideological dwelling place for their pursuit of selfishness and indecency towards their fellow man.

I'll gladly take a social conservative with a heart for people and God's creation over an ultra-ideological libertarian self-ist who has no concept of being "their brother's keeper".

I agree with this.  In fact the GOP used to be a lot more socially libertarian (and, to contrast, Democrats used to be a bit more statist).   

The problem is that they got hijacked by two different groups - religious extremists and kleptocrats.   Though the GOP has long been pro-business, the kleptos took it to the extreme eliminating safeguards which helped less ethical types garner large short term profits over long term economic health.   The religious extremists were mostly for the votes with a few token gestures here and there, but they scare the kleptos because Jesus tended to talk about helping the poor and all that a lot.  (not that some of the more extreme folks couldn't be convinced to ignore that, but the pigeons are coming home to roost now).  So you have a schism now between two groups at odds with each other trying to work together.

Their other problem is that the Democrats took over the ground they abandoned.   (Especially the third way types).  They moved from center-left to center right economicly, as the GOP was moving to an odd combo of hardcore lassez faire and corporate cronyism (although the Dems are not exactly guiltless either), and socially jumped radically from the idea of individual freedom to religious-based nanny statism, while the Democrats backed off on that front and moderated their views on governmental control of individual choices.

So now the main Democratic office holders tend to run from slightly liberal to moderately conservative on both economic and social views (-1 to +4 economic, 1 to 5 social) while the net republican mainstream has moved into the upper right corner (+4 to +9 economic, +5 to +10 authoritarian) though there is a schism within the party on that, as the kleptos don't tend to be concerned about social issues - beyond their value in manipulating the religious right, and the religious right has to contend with all that social justice stuff in the new testament which risks pulling down their economic score.
Logged
Beet
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,805


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #47 on: August 17, 2009, 08:53:49 PM »

In sort of an addendum to what Duke said, I think that Social Conservatism is not a loser. On the contrary, it is a winner provided it is inclusive rather than exclusive. Focusing on traditions, family, and community have appeal to almost all groups. The problem Social Conservatives have currently is that they exclude groups like Gays from that vision.

This is not a necessity. One way the US has avoided class conflict is by steadily expanding the definition of who was elite. In the early 19th century, Italians and Jews did not count as white, and Jews and Catholics would have been excluded from any definition of religious social conservatism. Now we have Jewishconservative promoting Palin and a majority Catholic block on the Supreme.

By the same token, embracing Gay Marriage does not require abandoning social conservatism or even opposition to a "homosexual agenda" generally. It can be seen as an acknowledgment that society as a whole benifits from having people in stable relationships, and at the point at which same-sex couples will be adopting and raising children it makes sense to give as positive an environment as possible. In this sense you could win over a large portion of the Gay Community, even if you continued to find Pride Parades indecent or Hate Crimes laws discriminatory.

Personally I think this is a more likely direction for the GOP than libertarianism. It allows them to keep social conservatives by opening just enough to maintain the potential for a majority.

It seems like modern day racial minorities would be the most obvious application of this by far. Many of them are socially conservative but don't vote GOP because they don't feel included.
Logged
Dan the Roman
liberalrepublican
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,458
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #48 on: August 17, 2009, 09:16:18 PM »

In sort of an addendum to what Duke said, I think that Social Conservatism is not a loser. On the contrary, it is a winner provided it is inclusive rather than exclusive. Focusing on traditions, family, and community have appeal to almost all groups. The problem Social Conservatives have currently is that they exclude groups like Gays from that vision.

This is not a necessity. One way the US has avoided class conflict is by steadily expanding the definition of who was elite. In the early 19th century, Italians and Jews did not count as white, and Jews and Catholics would have been excluded from any definition of religious social conservatism. Now we have Jewishconservative promoting Palin and a majority Catholic block on the Supreme.

By the same token, embracing Gay Marriage does not require abandoning social conservatism or even opposition to a "homosexual agenda" generally. It can be seen as an acknowledgment that society as a whole benifits from having people in stable relationships, and at the point at which same-sex couples will be adopting and raising children it makes sense to give as positive an environment as possible. In this sense you could win over a large portion of the Gay Community, even if you continued to find Pride Parades indecent or Hate Crimes laws discriminatory.

Personally I think this is a more likely direction for the GOP than libertarianism. It allows them to keep social conservatives by opening just enough to maintain the potential for a majority.

It seems like modern day racial minorities would be the most obvious application of this by far. Many of them are socially conservative but don't vote GOP because they don't feel included.

That could work, but I think race is a much bigger factor than even sexual orienation. If you look at American history there is only one group that has failed to assimilate and that is African Americans. A large part of that is racism, but the fact is that in order for their to be a good, moral, conservative, hard-working society there has to be an antithisis, and while its no longer explicitly racial, when someone complains about welfare, crack whores, gang killings, its clear who they mean.

The current battle in the GOP right now is not over whether there should be an other. That goes with out saying. Its who it should be. Fiscal Conservatives, many of whom are from wealthy backgrounds and cities and have lots of Gay friends would like it to be those scary black people in Harlem/Mexicans in East LA. Social Conservatives, seeing their power slipping, would rather coopt those Blacks and Hispanics into a Christian identity where liberals and gays would be the enemy.
Logged
RScannix
Rookie
**
Posts: 46
United States


Political Matrix
E: -1.00, S: -6.61

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #49 on: August 18, 2009, 08:57:59 AM »

Libertarians are not Socially Liberal, unless the term socially liberal means something different than the positions modern day Democrats take on social issues.  Gun Right, affirmative action, and the fairness doctrine are an example of just a few issues where libertarians are at odds with social liberals on social issues.  In addition, many libertarians are against abortion, as they see it as murder.  Just because we are united in opposition to the extremely un-American Patriot Act, Military Commissions Act, etc. does not make us allies on social issues.  For the most part, they have even stopped caring about these intrusions on our civil liberties since Barry-O got elected!

It depends on what sort of "liberal" one is talking about. For a social libertarian, liberal would mean "classical liberal," i.e. minimal government intervention in individual rights. In that sense, opposition to gun controls, affirmative action, and legislation which favors one group of individuals over another (even in the interest of "equality") would be a "liberal."
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.059 seconds with 11 queries.