Conquer Club

thegreekdog wrote:http://douthat.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/06/04/libertarian-populism-and-its-limits/

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articl ... 18694.html

Very interesting articles. Thanks.

I have a bit of an off-topic thought though (and I hope I don't derail things right from the beginning), but your articles brought it to mind:

Rand Paul is a legitimate 2016 candidate, and he should be. I would greatly enjoy seeing him in the mix, even though there are some things I disagree with him on policy-wise. But is Bobby Jindal REALLY considered a serious 2016 candidate? If so...why? I can think of little that is positive that I associate with Bobby Jindal. Seriously. I can't even imagine that he would be actually considered a Libertarian, as is suggested in those articles.

[Libertarianism] another, still-evolving brand of conservative reformism, one that also says it cares—not by what it tries to do for you (or to you), but by what it promises it won’t.

http://douthat.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/0 ... ts-limits/

"Conservative reformism"? Libertarianism 'conservatively' reforms? Doesn't make much sense when people try to fit 'libertarianism' into that conservative v. liberal dichotomy.

"one that also says it cares—not by what it tries to do for you (or to you), but by what it promises it won’t."

Meh. Libertarians care, and they recognize the limits of central planning, which isn't as useful at promoting the general interest--compared to civil society and the markets.

I don't care enough to address his criticism about Rand Paul's 1-5 points. He doesn't even explain why his criticism of 4 makes sense; he just flat-out states it as 'fact'.

Regarding libertarian-esque appeal for the electorate, it's going to be difficult. If it got more media time during elections, then maybe things would be different. Another problem is insufficient moral rhetoric. Libertarians lack this, and socialist/pro-big government people do not. They're always 'helping' the poor cuz government spending.


@Woodruff: Re: Bobby Jindal, agreed. He's a moderate Repub.

Woodruff - I am not a fan of Bobby Jindal generally.

BBS - The realclear article addresses the NY Times editorial. I agree with your comment on airtime. Depending upon how the next few years go, the next presidential primary will be primarily Rand Paul v. Chris Christie. Christie has great charismatic appeal and he's not a social conservative (which means he fits into the libertarian definition in that way); but he loves him some rent-seeking. I suspect the media likes Christie and will focus on him to the exclusion of Rand Paul. And ultimately those two guys are going to be publicly portrayed as similar (Christie famously went off about morons being scared of Arabs in government, which is a ham-fisted way of being a non-interventionist, but when push comes to shove I think Christie backs big defense).

thegreekdog wrote:BBS - The realclear article addresses the NY Times editorial. I agree with your comment on airtime. Depending upon how the next few years go, the next presidential primary will be primarily Rand Paul v. Chris Christie. Christie has great charismatic appeal and he's not a social conservative (which means he fits into the libertarian definition in that way); but he loves him some rent-seeking. I suspect the media likes Christie and will focus on him to the exclusion of Rand Paul. And ultimately those two guys are going to be publicly portrayed as similar (Christie famously went off about morons being scared of Arabs in government, which is a ham-fisted way of being a non-interventionist, but when push comes to shove I think Christie backs big defense).

I hope that's how it turns out (those two). I can find a number things to like about both, unlike with this past group where outside of Ron Paul it was REALLY DIFFICULT.

Woodruff wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:BBS - The realclear article addresses the NY Times editorial. I agree with your comment on airtime. Depending upon how the next few years go, the next presidential primary will be primarily Rand Paul v. Chris Christie. Christie has great charismatic appeal and he's not a social conservative (which means he fits into the libertarian definition in that way); but he loves him some rent-seeking. I suspect the media likes Christie and will focus on him to the exclusion of Rand Paul. And ultimately those two guys are going to be publicly portrayed as similar (Christie famously went off about morons being scared of Arabs in government, which is a ham-fisted way of being a non-interventionist, but when push comes to shove I think Christie backs big defense).

I hope that's how it turns out (those two). I can find a number things to like about both, unlike with this past group where outside of Ron Paul it was REALLY DIFFICULT.

I hope that's not how it turns out because I love Christie but it's going to be hard for me to support Rand Paul's opponent. Not that it ultimately matters because I cannot vote in the primary anyway since I'm not a registered Republican. If one of those two gentlemen wins the Republican nomination, I will have no problem voting for one of them over a Democrat or Libertarian.

thegreekdog wrote:Not that it ultimately matters because I cannot vote in the primary anyway since I'm not a registered Republican.

Yeah, same here. But that won't stop me from being as supportive as I can in other ways (i.e. not shutting up about them).

thegreekdog wrote:If one of those two gentlemen wins the Republican nomination, I will have no problem voting for one of them over a Democrat or Libertarian.

I might still favor Gary Johnson. But it would be a much more difficult choice for me.

Woodruff wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:BBS - The realclear article addresses the NY Times editorial. I agree with your comment on airtime. Depending upon how the next few years go, the next presidential primary will be primarily Rand Paul v. Chris Christie. Christie has great charismatic appeal and he's not a social conservative (which means he fits into the libertarian definition in that way); but he loves him some rent-seeking. I suspect the media likes Christie and will focus on him to the exclusion of Rand Paul. And ultimately those two guys are going to be publicly portrayed as similar (Christie famously went off about morons being scared of Arabs in government, which is a ham-fisted way of being a non-interventionist, but when push comes to shove I think Christie backs big defense).

I hope that's how it turns out (those two). I can find a number things to like about both, unlike with this past group where outside of Ron Paul it was REALLY DIFFICULT.

+1 on that woodruff. Though I'll admit I did hold my nose and cast a vote against Obama in the last election. Not sure if I'd ever cast a vote just for the lesser of two evils ever again though.