Editor: The media, even the so called “conservative media” isn’t cover all the bases. I’ll let you draw your own conclusions as to why. After Cruz left the race one party has been inundated with calls and emails. They are more constitutional than libertarians and just as conservative, perhaps more so, than the GOP’s platform which they never pay attention to except in election years. You need to visit Castle2016.com and ConstitutionParty.com. You don’t need to vote for the lesser of 2 (or 3) evils any more.
“Social conservatives aren’t victims. They’re enablers,” writes The Washington Post’s Jennifer Rubin. On the one hand, they are waaay too principled, she argues, digging their own political graves by treating “lost causes as make-or-break issues.” Yet, simultaneously, they’re also too unprincipled, caving to Trump and destroying the Republican Party with their rank hypocrisy.
Apparently, Rubin is concerned that a similar fate might befall the Libertarian Party if it starts flirting with these “fringe characters.” She aims most of her indignation at the Washington Examiner’s Tim Carney, who recently argued that Libertarians lost an opportunity to lure disillusioned conservatives by picking socially liberal candidates opposed to religious liberty: Gary Johnson and Bill Weld. Ben Domenech has made a similar case at The Federalist.
Rubin, who has an aversion to both social conservatives and libertarians, says there is no common ground to be found:
For one thing, Libertarians would lose their base, and for another, most social conservatives are not going to be lured by the prospect of fudging on abortion or gay marriage. (Johnson and Weld ascribe to the ‘serve all comers’ side in the wedding cake wars, in keeping with Johnson’s affection for the Civil Rights Act of 1964.)
Would the Libertarian Party really lose its base over abortion?
Consider this: the most popular libertarian politician over the last 30 years is probably Ron Paul, who maintained that abortion on demand was the “ultimate state tyranny.” The only libertarians elected to Congress — Rand Paul, Justin Amash, and Tom Massie — are all pro-lifers. Perhaps a libertarian’s electoral success is predicated on being pro-life. Whatever the case, the “libertarian base” is obviously pretty comfortable with the idea. It’s the only party left that could house people with both viewpoints.
At Reason magazine, Nick Gillespie offers a far more compelling take on all the tension between these two camps, arguing that the Johnson/Weld ticket merely preaches “fiscal conservatism and social liberalism.”
Is that what libertarianism is about: preaching social liberalism? Or is it about offering a system of governance that allows people to live as they please with minimal interference from the state? Because the latter position might hold great appeal across a number of cultural lines, while the former makes libertarians sound like a bunch of progressives who might want to cut taxes one day.
For instance, Gillespie argues just “as you can be against drug prohibition but against drug use, you can argue strenuously against abortion while not believing it should be banned by the state.” I strongly agree with this reasoning. In the same way, though, a person can also be strenuously against “discrimination” and “transphobia” and still believe in free association and religious liberty. Yet the arrangement seems to skew in one direction these days.
I mean, if you believe the state has a right to force Jews to bake Nazi cakes or to put Christians out of business for following their long-held beliefs, you are anti-liberty by any…