've seen the Reps as an uneasy alliance between two groups: big business interests (with some tag along small business constituents) and social conservatives. Principled libertarians were tolerated and, since they certainly couldn't find an ideological home in the Dem party with its commitment to a large state, they went along with the Reps for the ride.
The big business group wanted a small state in so far as regulation issues were concerned but a more munificient state in so far as infrastructure issues were involved--education, transportation, etc.
So I haven't seen the principled libertarians as having much influence inside the Rep Party.
Well, I think we differ in what we are calling "libertarians." I don't reserve the term for "principled libertarians." I don't think that there are really all that many "principled" anythings out there. Or, maybe better, yeah, they form the core constituencies of the parties, and it is likely that, in these increasingly polarized times, there are more of them than say, 25 years ago, but I think that there are a lot of people who are "common sense" libertarians. They are "Reagan democrats"--people who can swing both ways. People who mainly want to live and let live, who want taxes to be lower, and who want the "guvment off our backs." They also have some sense of responsbility to others and to society at large, but--enough is enough. They don't think through the longer term consequences of their positions, they are muddling through, and after all, isn't that we all do in some sense anyway, muddle through as best we can? They don't like it when Democrats get huffy and seem to want to regulate everything (until there are too many deaths that can be clearly pinned to unregulated activities--hence they are increasingly against smoking in public, and are just beginning to jump on the environment/pollution bandwagon). But neither do they like it when Republicans are so obviously hypocritical, get us into idiotic wars, continually and obviously lie and demonstrate rank incompetence (though it takes them awhile to realize it--Katrina was the final straw for many of these "folks"). Deficits are abstractions to them (Reagan proved that they don't matter, didn't he?).
I think Paul appeals to these people because of his obvious "straight" talk, the same kind of appeal that McCain had in 2000, and enjoyed until not too long ago, until he kept trying to rationalize his pro-war position, started trying to cozy up to the Pat Robertson set, and made his inane statements about the "safety" of Iraq. These are the people who called in and said that Paul won the debate. They aren't docrinaire Republicans or libertarians, and a fair number of them have switched to Independent status over the past few years. But there are still, I think, a fair number of them in the party, they have swallowed the negative propaganda of the GOP smearing Democrats as "tax and spend" elitist liberals (say it with a sneer), and haven't been able to shake that view, despite Clinton's best efforts.
Anyway, something like that. I don't have much time these days, so can't into it much more right now. |
