How have republicans "lost their way?" Contrast Libertarians and Republicans.

[emergent order]

Please excuse me; I am fairly new with politics. I have a couple key questions if you can help...

My first question is, what are some specific examples (evidence) of how Republicans have "lost their way?"

I am educating myself and feel I may get help in this forum. As I study the values of the parties, it seems to me the Republicans and Libertarians claim to value the SAME things. Which brings me to my my second question...

What is the difference between the Libertarian and Republican parties?

It seems to me they both (claim to) value limited government, individual freedom, individual responsibility, etc.... What is the difference between them? The Libertarians just seem to have a more beautiful way of stating the principles they stand for and perhaps are more trusted by their members.

I'd love to learn this. The only real way I justify being a Libertarian over a Republican is trust, in the fact that they truly stand for what I do. But their (claimed) values appear to be synonymous. How would you explain to someone that it may make more sense to someone with these value to be a member of the Libertarian Party over the Republican? Is it no more than trust?

Thank you, your help is genuinely appreciated.

[sailor]

Libertarian Party are half-assed sellouts.

Republican Party hasn`t lost its way. It is returning to her roots. Republican party the party of Abraham Lincoln had always been big government and pro-buerocratisation.

[travisAlbert]

I believe that the Republican Party has lost it's way. During the first half of the twentieth century, the Republican Party was for intellectuals who knew that big government would bring tyranny and terrorize the markets. As time passed, however, it began to adopt merchantilist economic positions, start wars, and to gain votes, they tried to appeal to Christians and southerners. This new constituency votes based on the states enforcement of morality. The new republican base will not allow for the limited government principles upon which it once stood.

The Libertarian Party is for very limited government. This means no wars, privacy, free markets, and individualism. Unfortunately, the Libertarian Party members selected Bob Barr as the presidential nominee. He was a free market republican. There is a difference between free market republicans and Libertarians. Hopefully due to the low amount of votes Barr recieved, the Libertarian Party will get their shit together so that the Libertarian Party does not branch off into two separate directions.

[Andrew-Austin]

I believe that the Republican Party has lost it's way. During the first half of the twentieth century, the Republican Party was for intellectuals who knew that big government would bring tyranny and terrorize the markets. As time passed, however, it began to adopt merchantilist economic positions, start wars, and to gain votes, they tried to appeal to Christians and southerners. This new constituency votes based on the states enforcement of morality. The new republican base will not allow for the limited government principles upon which it once stood.

The Libertarian Party is for very limited government. This means no wars, privacy, free markets, and individualism. Unfortunately, the Libertarian Party members selected Bob Barr as the presidential nominee. He was a free market republican. There is a difference between free market republicans and Libertarians. Hopefully due to the low amount of votes Barr recieved, the Libertarian Party will get their shit together so that the Libertarian Party does not branch off into two separate directions.

What in Barr's current platform do you not like?

I here plenty about how he used to be a neocon....

[TastyWheat]

The Republican party isn't just bad with directions, they're fucking blind! Their newest platform says (in so many words), "We don't support bailouts!" A hefty amount of Republicans then think a $700 billion "stabilization" plan isn't a bailout. It shouldn't have even been in the platform, it's common sense you don't give money for nothing, but the fact they put it in there seems to be a taunt. They can do whatever the hell they want and we won't vote them out.

[heavenlyboy34]

What in Barr's current platform do you not like?

I here plenty about how he used to be a neocon....

Barr was OK. I was back and forth between him and Baldwin for a long time. If Baldwin weren't running, I probably woulda voted Barr. I'm still trying to get over my voting addiction!

[Kludge]

Economic Issues:

Libertarians generally seek to significantly reduce the size of government and reduce gov't income and expenditure.
Republicans generally seek to maintain or slightly shrink the size of gov't and maintain or slightly reduce income and expenditure.
Democrats generally seek to significantly increase the size of gov't and increase gov't income and expenditure.

Social Issues (collective generalizations):

Libertarians - Maximum freedom while protecting property rights.
Republicans - Some freedom. It's okay to sacrifice freedom when children or the nation is "at risk".
Democrats - Some freedom. It's okay to sacrifice freedom when the "defenseless" are "at risk".

Gov't Reform:

Libertarians - Abolish most of the federal gov't, reduce power of local/state gov't.
Republicans - Slightly reduce or maintain the size of the federal gov't, give power to state and/or local governments.
Democrats - Significantly increase the power of the federal gov't. Reduce power of local and state gov't.

Yes, Republicans have lost their way, and judging by the pundits, will continue to stray from their roots as they seek to "broaden their base".

[heavenlyboy34]

Libertarian Party are half-assed sellouts.

Republican Party hasn`t lost its way. It is returning to her roots. Republican party the party of Abraham Lincoln had always been big government and pro-buerocratisation.

Some LP are sellouts. RP is in the LP as a lifetime member, and is no sellout. To come to your conclusion that libertarians have sold out, you have to really stretch the word "Libertarian" to include the likes of the decidedly unlibertarian Barr and Root.

[Danke]

What in Barr's current platform do you not like?

I here plenty about how he used to be a neocon....

I'm not sure what a platform has much to do with it.

I have read the MN GOP platform, and I liked it a lot, very libertarian. But does anyone follow it?

No, I would say past (and present) behavior is more important than one's platform.

[klamath]

Please excuse me; I am fairly new with politics. I have a couple key questions if you can help...

My first question is, what are some specific examples (evidence) of how Republicans have "lost their way?"

I am educating myself and feel I may get help in this forum. As I study the values of the parties, it seems to me the Republicans and Libertarians claim to value the SAME things. Which brings me to my my second question...

What is the difference between the Libertarian and Republican parties?

It seems to me they both (claim to) value limited government, individual freedom, individual responsibility, etc.... What is the difference between them? The Libertarians just seem to have a more beautiful way of stating the principles they stand for and perhaps are more trusted by their members.

I'd love to learn this. The only real way I justify being a Libertarian over a Republican is trust, in the fact that they truly stand for what I do. But their (claimed) values appear to be synonymous. How would you explain to someone that it may make more sense to someone with these value to be a member of the Libertarian Party over the Republican? Is it no more than trust?

Thank you, your help is genuinely appreciated.

here is why the republican party lost its way in the last 20 years

Didn't realize the cold war was won and we could withdraw our troops from around the world.

Instead of leaving social issues to the states they tried to compete with the democrats at using federal power for this.

Controlled all three branches of government yet spent money the government didn't have as fast as democrats.

Spent over a trillion dollars chasing 29 terrorists into multiple countries couldn't find them so changed the mission to nation building.

In fear of 29 terrorists enacted very intrusive domestic laws.

Tried to minipulate the ecconomy with the government and call it the free market.

These are the main issues that destroyed the party.

Those that never voted Republican have no clue what they are talking about on this issue.

[Number19]

Please excuse me; I am fairly new with politics. I have a couple key questions if you can help...

My first question is, what are some specific examples (evidence) of how Republicans have "lost their way?"

I am educating myself and feel I may get help in this forum. As I study the values of the parties, it seems to me the Republicans and Libertarians claim to value the SAME things. Which brings me to my my second question...

What is the difference between the Libertarian and Republican parties?

It seems to me they both (claim to) value limited government, individual freedom, individual responsibility, etc.... What is the difference between them? The Libertarians just seem to have a more beautiful way of stating the principles they stand for and perhaps are more trusted by their members.

I'd love to learn this. The only real way I justify being a Libertarian over a Republican is trust, in the fact that they truly stand for what I do. But their (claimed) values appear to be synonymous. How would you explain to someone that it may make more sense to someone with these value to be a member of the Libertarian Party over the Republican? Is it no more than trust?

Thank you, your help is genuinely appreciated.From what, or where, does this "trust" originate? There is a FUNDAMENTAL difference between the Republican Party and the Libertarian Party.

The LP believes, and this originates with the writings of Ayn Rand, that the use of force, by government, even when used for the "common good", is MORALLY wrong.

The Republican Party accepts the fundamental principle that the use of force, by government, is morally acceptable.

[Andrew-Austin]

I'm not sure what a platform has much to do with it.

I have read the MN GOP platform, and I liked it a lot, very libertarian. But does anyone follow it?

No, I would say past (and present) behavior is more important than one's platform.

So Jeb Bush (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeb_Bush) could go around kissing babies and sucking up to Ron Paul, and in 2012 you'd vote for him to be President if his platform was basically George Dubya Bush Version 2.0.

The platform someone is running on should have everything to do with why you do or do not vote for them. Voting for the libertarian candidate is saying you agree with the libertarian platform, its not saying you think Barr is the most upstanding character you have ever met. Especially if hes not going to win anyways and your just trying to send a message.

Barr's "behavior" in this case was merely not going to Ron Paul's third party meeting thing, at least that is the one thing people most often cite for not voting for him. And I contend that no, his behavior is not all that important when its obvious hes not going to win in the first place. Why can't we just promote the Libertarian party enough to get five percent and get another voice to break/mix up the two party insanity? Why toss this notion in to the wind just do to some emotional/reactionary response?

[klamath]

So Jeb Bush (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeb_Bush) could go around kissing babies and sucking up to Ron Paul, and in 2012 you'd vote for him to be President if his platform was basically George Dubya Bush Version 2.0.

Barr's "behavior" in this case was merely not going to Ron Paul's third party meeting thing, at least that is the one thing people most often cite for not voting for him. And I contend that no, his behavior is not all that important when its obvious hes not going to win in the first place. Why can't we just promote the Libertarian party enough to get five percent and get another voice to break/mix up the two party insanity? Why toss this notion in to the wind just do to some emotional/reactionary response?

You libertarians can build your party. As a republican I will be glad to work with you when you send someone to congress.

[emergent order]

From what, or where, does this "trust" originate? There is a FUNDAMENTAL difference between the Republican Party and the Libertarian Party.

The LP believes, and this originates with the writings of Ayn Rand, that the use of force, by government, even when used for the "common good", is MORALLY wrong.

The Republican Party accepts the fundamental principle that the use of force, by government, is morally acceptable.

"Trust," in the party, (or anyone) originates from

1) Competency. Confidence in their ability to achieve necessary objectives. The belief that they know how, have the intelligence and potential to achieve what they aspire to.

2) Integrity. They do what they say they will do. They genuinely stand for what they claim they stand for. They don't switch positions based on conformity ("sell out"), and their track record (actions) prove it.

3) Benevolence. You genuinely believe they're looking out for your best interests. You believe you and the party share the same values.

...

This is how it works, whether we are talking about trust in a group (ex., Republican Party), leader (ex., Ron Paul), or anyone (ex., any other person). It comes down to competency, integrity, and benevolence.

In other words, I (and I suspect many other would-be-Republicans)

1) Wonder if the majority of the party even understands how to fix the current problems. The majority of the party's actions and words show no proof that they even grasp the causes of the problems they aspire to deal with. Therefore, they may not even be able to solve the problems at this point. I question their COMPETENCY.

2) See that even though they claim to stand for personal freedom, minimum government intervention and spending, minimum foreign intervention, their actions contradict these values. (Thanks klamath, danke, heavenlyboy, kludge, tastywheat, travisalbert, etc... for your responses!) The bailout is a good example and actions such as it shatters ALL (these 3) pillars of trust. I see their actions contradict their claimed values. I question their INTEGRITY.

3) Once I see that their actions contradict their claimed values, I question their true intentions. I do believe they are "smart," so I suspect they may have reasons they do things that are not actually the reasons they claim. I think they are acting in special interests even if the people suffer. It appears that their values (see those listed above in 2) are not mine as I had hoped. These I think are best for the country, but what is best for the country apparently may not be the objective of this party. I question their BENEVOLENCE.

Therefore, I, like many other "would-be-Republicans" do not currently TRUST the Republican Party.

[LibertyEagle]

Therefore, I, like many other "would-be-Republicans" do not currently TRUST the Republican Party.

And you shouldn't. That's why the plan is to take over the Republican Party and return it to the true limited government positions they used to have.

However, I would advise against ever putting all your trust into an organization or in a "leader".

[Danke]

So Jeb Bush (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeb_Bush) could go around kissing babies and sucking up to Ron Paul, and in 2012 you'd vote for him to be President if his platform was basically George Dubya Bush Version 2.0.

The platform someone is running on should have everything to do with why you do or do not vote for them. Voting for the libertarian candidate is saying you agree with the libertarian platform, its not saying you think Barr is the most upstanding character you have ever met. Especially if hes not going to win anyways and your just trying to send a message.

Barr's "behavior" in this case was merely not going to Ron Paul's third party meeting thing, at least that is the one thing people most often cite for not voting for him. And I contend that no, his behavior is not all that important when its obvious hes not going to win in the first place. Why can't we just promote the Libertarian party enough to get five percent and get another voice to break/mix up the two party insanity? Why toss this notion in to the wind just do to some emotional/reactionary response?

That's ridiculous. If a serial rapist was running, you wouldn't care, as long as the party platform was agreeable?

No past voting record and present behavior is important, more so than platform. In Barr's case, I have experienced his lack of integrity first hand outside of the press conference.

[Andrew-Austin]

That's ridiculous. If a serial rapist was running, you wouldn't care, as long as the party platform was agreeable?

No past voting record and present behavior is important, more so than platform. In Barr's case, I have experienced his lack of integrity first hand outside of the press conference.

Yeah, its kinda hard to argue when you've actually met him. :o
Most people however were just reacting to that one no-show incident.

I wasn't trying to say character should be a complete non-factor. But I was saying its ridiculous to say that "character" (which is harder to judge in most instances), is more important than platform. Both really should be a factor, but to me Barr's apparent "lack of integrity" was not enough to dissuade me. It would be great to see a third party at least be some kind of challenge to the two beasts.

[Number19]

"Trust," in the party, (or anyone) originates from

1) Competency. Confidence in their ability to achieve necessary objectives. The belief that they know how, have the intelligence and potential to achieve what they aspire to.

2) Integrity. They do what they say they will do. They genuinely stand for what they claim they stand for. They don't switch positions based on conformity ("sell out"), and their track record (actions) prove it.

3) Benevolence. You genuinely believe they're looking out for your best interests. You believe you and the party share the same values....Sorry, while this sounds good, it simply can't be applied in the real world, unless you're assessing an incumbent.

The initial trust shown to LP candidates must be based on their uncompromising position that the use of force is immoral. Once a history is established, then a re-assessment based on your points become applicable.

[emergent order]

And you shouldn't. That's why the plan is to take over the Republican Party and return it to the true limited government positions they used to have.

However, I would advise against ever putting all your trust into an organization or in a "leader".

I agree with that plan 100%. The Republican Party is SUPPOSED TO stand for the right values. Their actions have contradicted these values, which causes speculation on their true intentions. The result is that they lose trust.

I do believe this is the perfect point in time to "reform" (I hate that over-used word) the Republican Party into what it was originally intended to be. We need to get the right people in office and educate those who already are in and, most important, our fellow human beings. People are interested in the idea of Liberty, freedom, economic freedom, etc... it is intriguing to them. People, THAT is who votes, so let's talk. I think this should be our mission.

I agree completely with everything you posted LibertyEagle. And I don't think we should ever do anything blindly. We should not adopt leaders, parties, etc... with the intention of following their words and actions, period. We should always ask if words and actions are consistent with proposed values. There IS a point at which a leader(s) should be questioned and potentially challenged. We are rational, thinking human beings and we need to have the self-respect to live and breathe our morals and core values.

----------------


Sorry, while this sounds good, it simply can't be applied in the real world, unless you're assessing an incumbent.

The initial trust shown to LP candidates must be based on their uncompromising position that the use of force is immoral. Once a history is established, then a re-assessment based on your points become applicable.

You're right, Number19; a history must be established FIRST if you are to base your trust on past actions. However, it obviously will be a factor once it has been established. Once you progressively build on history, you can say things along the lines of "Like you, I value (this), and that's why I (did this). My actions reflect my values and reflect yours." That's why Ron Paul can say he hasn't "flip-flopped" and people respect that. The man has integrity.

I also agree with you that "The initial trust shown to LP candidates must be based on their uncompromising position that the use of force is immoral" IF they know nothing yet about the candidate at hand. Your ACTIONS without a doubt must reflect your claimed values, and if they don't you WILL lose trust. The fact is, it would be nearly impossible to foster trust without a past! People do question whether you do what you say you will, and that is a big deal to them.

What I said about trust is simple.
Have the ability to find solutions. DO what you SAY you will, and let those actions reflect your values. Value the long-term interests of the people as a whole.

"trust:"
ABILITY
ACTION
INTENTION

[heavenlyboy34]

You libertarians can build your party. As a republican I will be glad to work with you when you send someone to congress.

Thanks! :)