The Right Scoop
libertarian is not a liberal who hates taxes, that's a ignorant thing to say Zo. I agree most libertarians are ignorant on islamification and a few other issues but they are on the right side of the argument for the most part zo. To try and be divisive and ask them to find a different party is laughable. Libertarians are those who believe in constitutional republic more so than conservative republicans. Most Republicans will tell you we are a democracy, most libertarians will call us a Constitutional Republic.
I think you and the evangelicals don't like libertarians because they are ok with gays. Libertarians feel the constitution and bill of rights protect them to where evangelicals see the bible as the final law of the land. In fact I think the reason the teaparty was sidetracked and lost most of is power from 2010 on is because of similar thinking. You know, drill baby drill, mountain top coal removal is great for the environment. Cut down the last redwood to prevent forest fires, that type of general ignorant thinking. Face it Zoo, the GOP and RNC are simply different wings on the same corrupt bird. The fact GB and evangelicals changed the course of the movement after GB 8/28 rally from limited gov, taxes and spending into a movement about God and religion is why Romney lost. It divided the movement and that is why you saw such a decline in the rallies that followed and up till now.
The GOP would be smarter to embrace common sense approaches that the majority of citizenry support. Take away the lefts argument and give them nothing to be right about.
Zoo, you and the GOP need the Paul bots and moderate Republicans and disgruntled democrats, who are you trying to kid. The church voted 50% for Obama so you will find no salvation there. Maybe it is that majority you should be trying to shun. If anyone is to blame for the loss of the republic it is the 60% of white church goers who ushered Obama and his socialism in as our new Republic.
The political platform of the Libertarian Party reflects the ideas of libertarianism, favoring minimally regulated markets, a less powerful state, strong civil liberties (including support for same-sex marriage and other LGBT rights), the legalization of cannabis, separation of church and state, open immigration, non-interventionism and neutrality in diplomatic relations (i.e., avoiding foreign military or economic entanglements with other nations), freedom of trade and travel to all foreign countries, and a more responsive and direct democracy.[9] The Libertarian Party has also supported the repeal of NAFTA, CAFTA, and similar trade agreements, as well as the United States' exit from the United Nations, WTO, and NATO.[10] The party has no official stance on abortion as its members have different opinions on the issue. Ron Paul, one of the former leaders of the Libertarian Party, is strictly pro-life. Meanwhile Gary Johnson, the party's 2012 presidential candidate, is pro-choice.
Although there is not an explicitly-labeled "left" or "right" designation of the party, it is considered by many to be more left-wing than the Republican Party but more right-wing than the Democratic Party when comparing the parties' positions to each other. Many members say they are more socially liberal than the Democrats, but more fiscally conservative than the Republicans. On the two-axis Nolan Chart, the party appears in the uppermost quadrant.
I am not a Lincoln fan. I believe that slavery was immoral. I also know that our "Civil War" had nothing to do with slavery. I also know that the Emancipation Proclamation did not free one single slave. The EP did not apply to all states. I love Zo, but I couldn't disagree more on this point.
It's ironic that we're at this point in our political history.
Back when GWBush was President, and Republicans ran both houses for a few months, I was laughing at Democrats for being unable to win any elections. I honestly had fear at the time that the Dems would become so out-of power that we'd have one-party rule.
I actually had some small hope that the Republicans would split along libertarian lines, to from two new parties, and the Dems would fade away entirely. I felt that such a two-party configuration was a more sane, normal one, rather than what we face with the ascendancy of the racist, totalitarian left.
That is an interesting concept. I would much prefer that to what we have. Essentially, you would kinda do a reset back to a different time. The RINOs would become the new libs, and the libertarian wing would be the new radical right wing side. The RINOs would simply take the place of the dems, but would still have to put out the rhetoric of the traditional right wing ideology.
They let it happen because they're too busy attacking each other instead of uniting for one cause. Stand united or divided you'll fall....
Unity is impossible. You guys have to many concrete principles. It started with the litmus test principle. Look at the other guys they are as flexible as slippery soap. Today they lifted the ban on women in combat. I disagree but that's flexibilty. That's attractive.
Read my .99cent ebook. It’s 2048 and It Happened at Nextfest.
Libertarians (and Conservatives to a lesser degree) are the only ones trying to save the Republican party from its statist tendencies, yet Zo claims that Libertarians are trying to "distort" said party. Distort it to what? The vision of the founders? That's a good kind of distortion that should be embraced.
OH HOGWASH!
This article does a fine job of dismantling the entire libertarian fantasy:
Libertarianism: Marxism of the Right
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/marxism-of-the-right/
libertarians stood alongside Occupy Wall Street and hold MANY of the same views. I categorize them as anarchists-lite.
Glenn Beck had a little "roundtable" a few weeks back, where they were trying to navel gaze over what went wrong in the election, and what to do about it.
The guy from Reason magazine, Nick Gillespie, said something like, "we need to liberalize our immigration policy, and make it easier for people to come to America."
At first I thought he was joking.
People often criticize me for going on about altruism vs self-interest all the time, but as you can see from this article, it's a vitally important moral conflict that has to be resolved. Conservatives still hold onto collectivism and altruism (like holding onto a corpse), even though collectivist-altruism was the moral code of the ideologies of the Nazis and the Communists. People weren't treated as individuals with unalienable individual rights, they were just treated as mere cogs in the machine, any of which can and should be sacrificed for 'good' the greater whole. Conservatives want it both ways though, even though individualism and self-interest (both of which are profoundly American) are both utterly incompatible with the Communist/Nazi collectivist-altruism.
Conservatives are morally conflicted because they want individualism, collectivism, altruism and self-interest, and they're up against Democrats who are morally consistent because they hate self-interest and individualism, but they love altruism and collectivism. In any such battle the most morally consistent side will always win. Democrats are winning right now, and the Conservatives' moral conflict is letting them win.
I listen to Mark Levin, and one thing that boggles his mind is how zealous the Left are. He simply does not understand that their zealotry comes from their moral consistency. The Left think they 'know' that altruism and collectivism are good, and they think they 'know' that self-interest and individualism are evil. They see the "hypocritical Conservatives", on the one hand saying that individualism is good, but then saying collectivism is good, and then on the one hand saying that altruism is good, but then saying self-interest is good. No wonder people don't vote Republican!
Quote: "No, it's not the "most morally consistent" side that wins; it's the side that feeds the monster of sin the most that wins"
What I said was logical. If you have moral consistency, ie. You know and preach that certain things are right and that certain things are wrong -- Then you will win every time against people who advocate contradictions and are hence morally inconsistent.
If you had to choose between a side that knows what's right and wrong, or a side that constantly contradicts itself when it talks about what's right and wrong, then you're always going to choose the former.
I mean, that's a nice platitude of yours, but it doesn't refute the logic of my argument.
Quote: "Organized, yes, "morally consistent", no."
You're right that they do not practice what they preach, but that's only because nobody can fully practice what they preach, as this quote from "The Fountainhead" illustrates:
"Tell man that altruism is the ideal. Not a single one has ever reached it and not a single one ever will. His every living instinct screams against it. But don’t you see what you accomplish? Man realises that he’s incapable of what he’s accepted as the noblest virtue - and it gives him a sense of guilt, of sin, of his own basic unworthiness. Since the supreme ideal is beyond his grasp, he gives up eventually all ideals, all aspiration, all sense of his personal value. He feels himself obliged to preach what he can’t practice. But one can’t be good halfway or honest approximately. To preserve one’s integrity is a hard battle. Why preserve that which one knows to be corrupt already? His soul gives up its self respect. You’ve got him. He’ll obey. He’ll be glad to obey – because he can’t trust himself, he feels uncertain, he feels unclean."
And that's how it works.
Quote: "And I don't know why you think Conservatives believe in collectivism. Maybe you're referring to Republicans, I don't know. Perhaps you can provide an example of this"
The article that you linked me to. I've quoted the relevant part in an earlier post.
Quote: "I want individualism but even that goes so far. A person who rapes women can be an individualist because that represents his own self-interest"
In what crazy world is raping someone in one's self-interest?
Sure, you may get that short term gain from raping someone, but self-interest isn't just about short-term highs, like snorting a line of cocaine. Self-interest is for the whole time frame of one's life. Sure, you may get that momentary enjoyment, but you'll likely spend most, if not the rest of your life in jail, and your conscience will be tortured by what you did.
An example that I like is Bernie Madoff. People think he was acting in his self-interest when he defrauded people out of billions of dollars in a ponzi scheme, that he was living the high-life on others' money - But actually he was totally miserable all the time; he had to lie to his friends, his family, and the people he dealt with; he lived in constant fear that he'd be caught and punished. In fact, after being arrested, he now admits that he's happier than he was before he got caught, because at least his mind can now rest easy since he's already caught. Also, one of his sons committed suicide as a result of all of this, so Madoff has lost a son now too, and that comes with its own grief. Anyone who says Madoff was acting in his self-interest for doing that ponzi scheme, is about as wrong as people who say that raping someone is in your self-interest, or robbing someone is in your self-interest, or that murdering someone is in your self-interest.
Acting in one's self-interest is actually about figuring out how to make your life (the whole thing) the best possible life that it can be. It ISN'T about short term gain, but long term pain - That's self-destructive. The "self" is being destroyed by the short term actions.
You really need to re-think your premises on self-interest, because yours are currently really screwed up.
I disagree. I'm not conflicted at all. I don't believe in collectivism. I want individualism but even that goes so far. A person who rapes women can be an individualist because that represents his own self-interest, but to say his individualism is good for society or even women! is another thing entirely.
And liberals are anything but moral. How is the murder of millions of unborn and the defense of every perverse lifestyle imaginable "moral" exactly?
No, it's not the "most morally consistent" side that wins; it's the side that feeds the monster of sin the most that wins. It's always been that way and always will be.
It is human nature to feed the lusts of the heart and it's the politician's role to remain in power by fueling that lust. Whether it's welfare so that the lazy can stay at home and collect freebies off the working man or whether it's the college degenerate who wants free contraception so she can play the whore, the monster within us all demands to be fed. And politicians, like drug pushers are all too glad to oblige them.
And you are dead wrong about the left's "moral consistency", unless by "moral consistency" you mean that they are consistently IMMORAL (I'm not sure which you mean). Organized, yes, "morally consistent", no. They believe in individual rights until those rights infringe upon their threshold of what is a "right". Then they seek to take those rights.
And I don't know why you think Conservatives believe in collectivism. Maybe you're referring to Republicans, I don't know. Perhaps you can provide an example of this.
And I don't vote repubugnantcan...at least not anymore. I vote Conservative. I am not a mindless pawn of any party. I believe in ideas grounded in moral absolutism. That worldview excludes me from embracing the left or the current repugnantcan party.
That's a pretty disgusting article, quote "Society in fact requires both individualism and collectivism, both selfishness and altruism, to function.". My oh my, and this is what "theamericanconservative.com" considers Conservative thought?
So now, to be a Conservative, you have to live a contradiction. You have to advocate individualism, but also advocate collectivism, and you have to advocate self-interest, but also advocate self-sacrifice. Well which is it? You can't have it both ways! They're diametrically opposed moral codes of right and wrong.
Think about it. The pursuit of happiness wasn't the pursuit of the happiness of the happiness of others - it was an individual right to your OWN pursuit of happiness, your OWN liberty, your OWN life. All of the individual rights are rights to be selfish!
Government is supposed to be there, according to the founders, to protect the individual rights, which means that it's supposed to be there to protect our individual right to be selfish.
Selfishness isn't evil. Only GOOD things come from selfishness. Murdering, thieving, defrauding, and so forth, are NOT selfish actions; they're self-destructive/self-less actions; the self is what is being destroyed by such actions. Selfishness is only the development/benefit of the self. You and all Conservatives have to get into your thick heads that just because a particular action isn't being done for others, does NOT mean that it's a selfish action. Selfishness, or should I say the politically correct way - "self-interest" - is the act of making one's life the best possible life that it can be; of pursuing one's happiness; of working for rational values in life. It's NOT the evil that you've been brainwashed into thinking that it is.
The article then goes on to say that quote: "freedom, though a good thing, is simply not the only good thing in life" and then it lists "security, prosperity, and family are in fact the bulk of happiness for most real people and the principal issues that concern governments". This kind of language eliminates the principle of limited government. It says that government's role isn't just to protect the individual rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness (as the founders intended), but that it's supposed to meddle in all aspects of an individual's security, prosperity and family. Why should government be concerned with my family? Why should government be concerned with my prosperity? Government needs to bugger off out of these things. It has NO business being involved in any of them. Leave me alone.
Ugh, and here we go again, Conservatives can't stand pornography, so let's get government to ban it, quote: "Consider pornography: libertarians say it should be permitted because if someone doesn’t like it, he can choose not to view it. But what he can’t do is choose not to live in a culture that has been vulgarized by it".
This is tyranny, right here. The kind of tyranny that Conservatives advocate.
By what standard does one measure the "vulgarization of the culture"? It can't be objectively measured, and even if were possible, it still wouldn't be something that government can crack down on, considering that government is only allowed to crack down on violations of individual rights, and "vulgarity" is not an initiation of force / violation of individual rights.
I reserve the right to use maximum vulgarity towards ANYONE. If I want to say every single racist word I can think of, it's my freedom to do so, just as if I want to watch/produce/buy/sell pornography, it's my freedom to do so. Vulgarity is not a crime, but the tyrannical Conservatives would make it so, even though vulgarity is not a violation of individual rights and therefore not a legitimate thing for government to crack down on.
I'm only 1/3rd down the article, yet already I've written a wall of text about the disgustingly tyrannical nature of Conservatives, as proven by this article from theamericanconservative.com
Quote: "How in God's name is this tyranny? You might as well say: Because the government won't allow me to murder my neighbor, they are being tyrannical!"
No, there is a profound difference between the two. Murder is a violation of individual rights, and should rightly be punished by government's retalitatory force (eg. police), but being "vulgar" (a subjective term in itself) is not a violation of individual rights; no physical harm has been caused, and no property has been damaged/destroyed; government has NO role here.
So for you to support an author who is implying that government should retaliate against "vulgarity" (pornography, in this case) by (I logically assume) banning it, would be a gross violation of the individual rights of those who watch/produce/sell/buy pornography.
Any violations of individual rights by the government is by very definition tyranny.
You support an author who is implying that he advocates tyranny, and so therefore it suggests that you support tyranny too.
Quote: "I mean immorality is a cancer. It spreads and infects all of society. It's written into laws in Roe v Wade and Texas vs Lawrence. It's ignored by the FCC when it comes to entertainment. Musicians endorse it and children absorb it"
Have you ever considered that individual rights TRUMP your moral code? That pornography might be considered "immoral" according to your moral code, but that I still have unalienable individual rights to watch/produce/sell/buy pornography, meaning that government can't do and shouldn't do anything to stop it.
Contrary to your thoughts, government is NOT there to enforce your particular moral code - The government is simply there to protect the unalienable individual rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness - as the founders intended.
If you want a government that enforces your religion's moral code on everyone, then you by very definition want a theocracy, not a constitutional republic. Just admit it. You want a theocracy, just like that which exists in Iran, but a Christian one. You don't give a sod about individual rights; you only give a sod about enforcing your religion's moral code on everyone, regardless of whether it violates individual rights in doing so.
Also, your last paragraph is a load of rubbish. I've indicated why, in response to this quote.
"Consider pornography: libertarians say it should be permitted because if someone doesn’t like it, he can choose not to view it. But what he can’t do is choose not to live in a culture that has been vulgarized by it".
"This is tyranny, right here. The kind of tyranny that Conservatives advocate. "
How in God's name is this tyranny?
You might as well say: Because the government won't allow me to murder my neighbor, they are being tyrannical! I mean immorality is a cancer. It spreads and infects all of society. It's written into laws in Roe v Wade and Texas vs Lawrence. It's ignored by the FCC when it comes to entertainment. Musicians endorse it and children absorb it.
Liberty does NOT mean anarchy! Liberty only works when it is tempered with morality. And in the US, OUR morality is grounded in Judeo/Christian morality. That rubs the pervert and the godless the wrong way, but too bad. This nation, as it was established, can only continue to operate properly if/when the individual's life is governed by objective moral ethics. If the individual will not restrain his OWN behavior then government inevitably will have to step in and do it for him. That is why there are prisons. Not because the government is tyrannical but because it is being consistent in punishing immorality to protect the civilization. That's why there are laws. Laws restrain evil.
What is evil? I would argue, and so most certainly would the Founders, that evil is that which defies God's laws. When God says: Thou shalt not murder, and we murder, we have defiled God's law LONG BEFORE we defiled man's laws. Because murder is conceived in the heart and meditated on long before the murder ever occurs. The same is true with greed, sexuality, life, et al.
God has already defined the parameters of morality. It is our duty then to GOVERN ourselves based on those moral absolutes. When we fail to do that, we get modern day America where violence and immorality have reached epic proportions. And it is going to get worse.
What it boils down to is that the Founders essentially said: "Look we'll give you the framework of a government, but this government will not be able to entirely restrain what lies deep inside the human heart -- the propensity to want to feed the monster of sin and lust and greed within. This government we're giving you will require a self-governing people to preserve it. A people who can differentiate between what is morally right and morally wrong. Any other sort of people -- perverse people and people who deny moral absolutes grounded in the Creator's law will not be able to preserve this Union. They are incapable."
There are many Noteworthy Libertarians yet I can't think of one of them that fits your description "libertarians stood alongside Occupy Wall Street and hold MANY of the same views"
Many of our favorite founders were anarchist light. Libertarianism is the exact opposite of Communism, Socialism, and Marxism. Libertarians want to flip the power back to bottom up from the current top down situation that both parties have created.
It seems to me that people have a distorted view of anarchy. They assume that it will lead to chaos. Anarchy does not mean "no government", just no central government. Anarchy is not practical anymore, but is basically just smaller groups of people governing themselves. The founders used that principle in the bill of rights. The ninth and tenth amendments were as close to ensuring anarchist states as they could while still having a federal government. They put into our surpreme law such wording that was supposed to ensure the preservation of the anarchist states, but with a federal protectory. The feds were not to infringe on the individual liberties of the people, but only protect the borders and the supreme law itself.
Anarchy is the enemy of the State, because it opposes central government control of personal choices and property. Anarchists generally show up to create many problems and enact violence during political events. Yet most people don't seem to know that these "anarchists" are generally hired thugs sent in to create a scenario that requires the State to intervene in free speech exercises. Such was the case in Washington state during the peaceful WTO protests. The cops stood down while the "anarchists" were busting out bank windowns and destroying property. The anarchist were let free while the protesters got stuffed, cuffed, and processed at the airport.
It would just be nice to have things referred to in their proper context once in a while.
I don't consider myself a Libertarian because I differ on several points with 'typical' Libertarians. I believe my views are identical to those of most of the Founders.
Zo's suggestion that my disgust with Lincoln's impeachment-worthy violations of our Constitution, his bloody and tyrannical subjugation of sovereign states, and his later revisionist pretense of nobility proves my supposed support for slavery is not only false and unfair, but also a fantastical ad hominem lie worthy of Benghazi Hussein Obama himself.
I'm a Libertarian and I don't hate Lincoln. In fact I admire him. Lincoln's was a unique situation, a war for survival. He was fighting an enemy army just across the darn river that, for most of the time was winning the battles. Despite what Jefferson Davis said about leaving us alone, I suspect most Confederates wanted the war... at the beginning.
It's just one of Zo's strawman arguments. I wouldn't sweat it if I were you.
Ronald Reagan said that "Libertarianism is the heart and soul of the Republican party", yet that heart and soul is precisely what Zo wants ripped out. When you rip out the Libertarianism (heart and soul) from the Republican party, you just get a walking corpse / zombie of its former self.
From the hand and mind of GOD, to my spirit and then to you, MY FELLOW AMERICAN'S
26 For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; 27 and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.
28 And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done. 29 They were filled with all manner of unrighteousness, evil, covetousness, malice. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness. They are gossips, 30 slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, 31 foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless
If this, to you, is not self explanatory. Then it is speaking of and directly to you!
Definition of SOCIALISM
1
: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2
a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property
b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3
: a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done
AGAIN NUFF SAID!
Here is the problem. Those labels don't work anymore.
-Young people are too new to know about the stigma of being called those names.
-Minorities never really cared.
-Women are social.
Although the academics, history and civics of the argument are required. You guys have started to look like better than the rest old farts. This has to get fixed or just wait. Tides always turn.
Read my .99cent ebook. It’s 2048 and It Happened at Nextfest.
Here’s the problem
The powers that be have spent over 100 years PROGRAMMING that ideal into the heads of the young. It is the worst kind of pedophilia and should be stomped out like a runaway campfire. The other problem is the defeatist attitude. It is very apparent that some in our society have GIVEN UP. Just like the bulk of the lame duck Congress. Copitulation is DEFEAT! PERIOD.
When Zo talks about the Republican party, he's talking about an "ideal" based upon what he thinks the Republican party are supposed to be all about. The problem is that they are nothing like what Zo believes, because the reality is that the Republican party are the party of soft-tyranny both economically and socially/politically.
If you elect Democrat, you get tyranny. If you elect Republican, you get tyranny.
You're fed food as poison, and the antidote as poison. Flip a coin: heads - tyranny; tails - tyranny.
Quite frankly, Zo needs a reality check.
Eeeeeeeeeeeeh, wrong again Mr. Wizard. Read the REPUBLIC PAPERS. written before the Constitution or the Bill of Rights. In which it states " NO ONE PERSON HAS THE AUTHORITY NOR THE RIGHT TO FORCE ANOTHER TO HIS WILL. THAT RIGHT IS SOLELY IN THE HANDS OF GOD!"
That is what all Republican's I have ever met, true republican's anyway, believe in. That include myself and my wife. No one will ever or dare ever come to our home and TELL US how we can and cannot live. What we can eat or not. Or whom we can or cannot ask to NOT OPPRESS US!
Like I said, it's the difference between what the "ideal" is and what the "reality" is. The "ideal" is that the Republican party is the champion of individual freedom, but the "reality" is that the Republican party is the party of soft-tyranny / the hand-maiden to the Democrat's agenda.
I don't think there's any hope of salvaging the Republican party, and even if there was it'd would be too late to do anything about it.
I say, just let it die, and let something stronger take its place.
Clinton was so into policing the world that GW campaigned against it. Clinton received bipartisan support for doing it. GWB went well beyond catching Bin Laden and invaded multiple countries who never attacked us. The democrats opposed GW, yet voted for it all. GW has the Patriot act written, changes it at the last minute and sends it back for a vote. Without reading it, both parties voted for it. Regardless of all the misinformation, the NDAA 12' and '13 does allow for indefinite detention of US citizens without due process. Both parties supported it, and rejected amendments that would exclude Americans from the ID clause. Both parties raise the debt ceiling time after time. Both parties vote to grow government. Both parties vote for spending bills that fund abortion. Both parties appoint corporate heads to head up regulatory agencies. Both parties support imcrementally disarming the public. Both parties keep the borders wide open. Both parties vote to bail out big business at the expense of the citizens. Both parties vote to fund thre welfare state, police state, and massive socialist programs.
If the libertarians want to come in and say "NO MORE", then I am fine with that.
Do you realize how many people Lincoln put in jail for disagreeing with him? That included members of congress. He jailed journalist and whoever openly opposed his agenda. Thousands of people.
I thank the founding fathers for recognizing the unalienable individual rights, but I don't thank political parties for doing their job (protecting those rights), since gratitude is not a required payment for their services. Besides, the Republican party have long ago stopped caring about protecting the unalienable individual rights; they're (now) almost as bad as the Democrats when it comes to violating those rights.
You've lost the plot, mate. Try replying to what I've actually said, rather than going off on one.
By the way genius. You can thank the wigs and republican parties for the very ability to say what you are saying and not going to jail over it like in China or North Korea. Does Concord ring a bell, I THOUGH NOT!
Slavery into new U.S. territories and states. What began as a single-issue, independent party became a major political force in the United States. Six years after the new party was formed, Republican nominee Abraham Lincoln won the U.S. presidential election. The Republican Party and its counterpart, the Democratic Party, became the mainstays of the nation's de facto two-party system.
Lincoln's victory in 1860 signaled the demise of the Whig Party and the ascendance of Republican politics. From 1860 to 1931, the Republicans dominated U.S. presidential elections. Only two Democrats were elected to the White House during the 70-year period of Republican preeminence.
The early Republican Party was shaped by political conscience and regionalism. Throughout the early and mid-nineteenth century, states in the North and South were bitterly divided over the issues of slavery and state sovereignty. In 1854 the enactment of the Kansas-Nebraska Act inflamed political passions. Under the act residents of the new territories of Kansas and Nebraska could decide whether to permit slavery in their regions. In effect, the act invalidated the Missouri Compromise of 1820, which prohibited the extension of slavery in new areas of the United States. Opponents of slavery condemned the measure, and violence erupted in Kansas.
Antislavery parties had already sprung up in the United States. The abolitionist Liberty Party began in 1840, and the Free Soil Party was formed in 1848. In much the same spirit, the Republican Party arose to protest the Nebraska-Kansas Act. The new group drew support from third parties and disaffected Democrats and Whigs. After organizational meetings in 1854 in Ripon, Wisconsin, and Jackson, Michigan, the Republican Party was born.
In 1856 the Republicans nominated their first presidential candidate, John C. Frémont, a former explorer who opposed the expansion of slavery in new U.S. territories and states. Although defeated in the national election by Democrat James Buchanan, Frémont received one-third of the popular vote.
In 1860 Abraham Lincoln from Illinois was the Republican presidential nominee. Lincoln appealed not only to antislavery voters but to business owners in the East and farmers in the Midwest. The Democratic Party was in turmoil over slavery. The northern Democrats nominated stephen a. douglas, who tried to sidestep the issue, and the southern Democrats backed John C. Breckinridge, who denounced government efforts to prohibit slavery. Lincoln defeated both candidates.
Although Lincoln's election was a triumph for the Republicans, his support was concentrated primarily in the North. Shortly after Lincoln's victory, several southern states seceded from the Union, and the bloody U.S. Civil War began.
Throughout the war Lincoln and his policies took a drubbing from the press and public. When Lincoln ran for reelection, the Republican Party temporarily switched its name to the Union Party. Lincoln sought a second term with Democrat Andrew Johnson as his running mate in order to deflect criticism of the Republican Party. Johnson, from Tennessee, was one of the few southerners to support the preservation of the Union. Despite his critics Lincoln defeated the Democratic nominee, George B. McClellan, who ran on a peace platform.
After the North's victory in 1865, the Republicans oversaw Reconstruction, a period of rebuilding for the vanquished South. Lincoln favored a more conciliatory attitude toward the defeated Confederacy. Radical Republicans, however, sought a complete overhaul of the South's economic and social system. After Lincoln's assassination in 1865, the Republicans' Reconstruction policies—such as conferring citizenship and voting rights to former slaves—created long-lasting resentment among many southern whites.
Republicans depended upon the support of northern voters and courted the vote of emancipated slaves. The party fanned hostility by reminding northern voters of the South's disloyalty during the war. The Republicans were the dominant party in the United States from 1860 to 1931, and the party's base among southern whites began to grow in the 1950s, when political loyalties began to shift.
During their long period of political dominance, Republicans sent the following candidates to the White House: ulysses s. grant, rutherford b. hayes, james garfield (died in office), chester a. arthur (vice president who succeeded Garfield), benjamin harrison, william mckinley (died in office), Theodore Roosevelt (vice president who succeeded McKinley and was later elected on his own), william howard taft, warren g. harding, calvin coolidge, and herbert hoover.
During the 1880s and 1890s, there was an important shift in party affiliation. Struggling Republican farmers throughout the Midwest, South, and West switched their political allegiance to the Democrats who promised them government assistance. The financially strapped farmers were concerned about the depressed national economy. Many turned to the populist movement headed by Democrat William Jennings Bryan. A brilliant orator, Bryan called for the free coinage of silver currency, whereas the Republicans favored the gold standard.
Despite his popularity Bryan was defeated by Republican William McKinley in the 1896 presidential election. The Democrats appealed to farmers, but the Republicans had captured the business and urban vote. After the U.S. economy improved during the McKinley administration, supporters dubbed the Republican Party "the Grand Old Party," or the GOP, a nickname that endured.
After President McKinley was assassinated in 1901, Vice President Theodore Roosevelt assumed the presidency. He pursued ambitious social reforms such as stricter antitrust laws, tougher meat and drug regulations, and new environmental measures. In 1912 Roosevelt and his followers broke off from the Republicans to form the Bull Moose Party. The third party split helped Democrat woodrow wilson defeat Republican candidate William Howard Taft.
After eight years of Democratic power, during which the U.S. fought in World War I, the Republicans returned to the White House in 1920 with Warren G. Harding. Unable to stave off or reverse the Great Depression, the Republicans lost control of the Oval Office in 1932.
During the Great Depression, the public became impatient with the ineffectual economic policies of Republican President Herbert
Hoover. Democrat franklin d. roosevelt swept into the White House with a promise of a New Deal for all Americans. From 1932 to 1945, Roosevelt lifted the nation from its economic collapse and guided it through World War II. During Roosevelt's administration the Republican Party lost its traditional constituency of African Americans and urban workers. Harry S. Truman followed Roosevelt in office and in 1948 withstood a strong challenge from Republican thomas e. dewey.
Republican dwight d. eisenhower won the presidency in 1952 and 1956. A popular World War II hero, Eisenhower oversaw a good economy and a swift end to the Korean War. Eisenhower was succeeded in 1960 by Democrat john f. kennedy who defeated Eisenhower's vice president, Republican nominee richard m. nixon. In 1964 Republicans nominated ultra-conservative barry m. goldwater who was trounced at the polls by Democrat lyndon b. johnson, the incumbent. Johnson, Kennedy's vice president, had assumed the presidency after Kennedy's assassination in 1963.
When Republican Richard M. Nixon was elected president in 1968, he began the reduction of U.S. military troops in Southeast Asia. Nixon opened trade with China and improved foreign relations through a policy of detente with the former Soviet Union. During his term the shift of southern Democrats to the Republican Party accelerated. (In fact, from 1972 to 1988, the South was the most Republican region of the United States.)
The nadir for the Republican Party occurred in 1974 when Nixon left office in the midst of the Watergate scandal, a botched attempt to burglarize and wiretap the Democratic National Committee headquarters. Implicated in the scandal's cover-up, Nixon became the only president in U.S. history to resign from office. He was succeeded by Vice President gerald r. ford of Michigan who served the remainder of Nixon's term and pardoned the disgraced president.
Ford lost the 1976 presidential election to Democrat jimmy carter of Georgia. A sour economy and the bungling of foreign affairs (most notably the Iran hostage crisis) led to Carter's defeat in 1980 by Republican challenger ronald reagan and his running mate, George Herbert Walker Bush.
The Republicans controlled the White House for twelve years, with Reagan serving two terms and Bush one. During Reagan's tenure, southern Democrats turned in droves to the Republican Party, embracing Reagan's politically conservative message. Pointing to widespread ticket-splitting, many analysts believe voters embraced the charismatic Reagan, not the party. Bush became president in 1988 but was defeated in 1992, by Democrat bill clinton of Arkansas.
Although considered the party of business and the suburbs, the GOP has made significant inroads in traditionally Democratic areas such as labor and the South. An extremely conservative element dominated the Republican Party in the 1980s, but a more moderate wing began to exert influence in the late 1990s. Many of these moderates were elected to Congress in 1994, giving the Republicans control of both houses for the first time in more than 40 years.
Tell you what" you produce one shred of viable and irrefutable evidence that cab be proven beyond any doubt and I will retract everything I said. Until you do that, you are still utterly out there and wrong!
com·mu·nism [kom-yuh-niz-uhm] Show IPA
noun
1.
a theory or system of social organization based on the holding of all property in common, actual ownership being ascribed to the community as a whole or to the state.
2.
( often initial capital letter ) a system of social organization in which all economic and social activity is controlled by a totalitarian state dominated by a single and self-perpetuating political party.
3.
( initial capital letter ) the principles and practices of the Communist party.
NUFF SAID
The problem with the Republican party is not their different groups. The problem with the Republican party is that they have failed to reach the culture. You can have all the web sites, newspapers, TV, or whatever...but as long as Republicans stay in their Ivory Towers, they might win a few tactical political battles but not the strategic ones.
Choose a leader than can reach into the culture and fight the dual enemies of the leftist opponents and the leftist media with alacrity and clarity. Keep your promises, stand your ground by sticking to traditional conservative principals and they'll win the next election.
If anyone is upset about Libertarians in the republican party, they need only to consider that it is essentially Boehner's fault. When republicans appear to have the same agenda as the democrats, the libertarians look pretty good.
The parties used to look the same 40 or 50 years ago too. Back then it was a good thing. Not so much anymore.
Democrats are in favor of hard-tyranny both economically and socially/politically;
Republicans are in favor of soft-tyranny both economically and socially/politically;
Conservatives are in favor of economic freedom, but in favor of social/political hard tyranny (medievalism, to be precise);
Libertarians are in favor of liberty, both economically and socially/politically... but without any consistent and integrated philosophy to support their cause of liberty (ie. liberty for the sake of ??)
There are other groups, such as Objectivists, Voluntaryists, Anarcho-Capitalists, and so on.
Quite frankly, I don't know where all this stuff is coming from about Libertarians hating Lincoln, and Libertarians favoring the Confederacy. I know I don't believe any of that crap, and I certainly haven't heard any of it in Libertarian circles. The only times I've heard it are from Mark Levin and (now) Zo.
I consider myself a Libertarian and NO I don't hate Lincoln but yes I favored the Confederacy. How was what the South did any diff than the Revolutionary War? The Gov became unrepresentative of them and oppressive towards them.
Besides, how many times did the New England States threaten secession? Several times, the War of 1812 which they refused to participate in, over the Louisiana Purchase and even over the slavery issue because they didn't want to be a part of a Union that had slave States. Oddly there was no military action against them.
Again, it was the south that fired on Ft. Sumter and then a few months later they invaded Kentucky in two places.
The north actually tried to work with the south by offering a line all the way across the US to Ca and below that line slavery would have been allowed. The south still attacked and said no.
I really like this kid. Speaks from the heart and doesn't care if someone doesn't like it or not.
"A Libertarian is basically a Liberal who hates taxes"
So very uneducated. So wrong. So, so, so painfully wrong.
There is a fringe group of libertarians who are anti-Lincoln. A fringe group.
Liberal = large federal government
GOP = large federal government
Libertarian = small federal government
Liberal = crony capitalism, loves picking winners and losers
GOP = crony capitalism, loves picking winners and losers
Libertarian = free markets with no federal government picking winners and losers
Liberal = loves complex tax system to dole out favors to special interests
GOP = loves complex tax system to dole out favors to special interests
Libertarian = desires flat/FairTax with no ability for Congress to dole out favors
I love Zo videos, but obviously he has been listening to/reading someone who is not speaking truthfully about libertarians. Even Levin has said that he only has problems with the lunatics in the Libertarians - you might have noticed Levin is not so happy with many GOP members as well.
"I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism" - Ronald Reagan
Just because a group of minarchist/anarchist/Lincoln-haters calls themselves libertarian does not make it so.
Equally, just because some RINO has an "R" next to their name does not make them a conservative.
Three main Tea-Party goals: Less government, less taxes, less spending. Every one of these is libertarian. NONE of them are Republican. You can SAY they are, but whenever the Republican Party is in charge government and spending increases.
If anyone is resembling anyone it is the GOP and the Democrats looking very similar, not libertarians.
Zo's mistakes, and many comments on this thread disappoint me.
Ron Paul and his people made libertarianism look too much like a drug, porn and human trafficking and gay marriage legalization group. Paul was right about banishing the FED, deficit spending, backing our currency with precious metals, protecting our economy, staying out of foreign government affairs, not sending our troops unless approved by Congress. However, he was so wrong about legalizing drugs, etc.
Constitutional Conservative Party would be a better name than Libertarian and it's better than TEA Party too.
Libertarian sounds too much like Libertine.
TEA Party is not a name that defines anything and leads to misunderstanding.
Constitutional Conservative is what I am willing to call myself...and will do so.
I hear what you say about the Ron Paul effect, but reading your words about how it made libertarianism "look too much like a drug, porn and human trafficking and gay marriage legalization group" makes me realize that the Media's hard work at labeling the libertarians as such a thing has been successful.
There is a reason why the MSM focuses on drugs, porn, and marriage when talking about the libertarians. Keep the opposition to liberal tyranny divided and fighting among themselves.
Zo played right into it as well. Shame.
For the record, I consider myself a Constitutional Conservative as well - but at a state level as opposed to the Federal level, where I am a libertarian. Let the 50 laboratories of invention and experimentation do what their citizens would like to do, then lets see what works.
I have a funny feeling the "blue" states will be broke and their social framework in ruins within a decade or two.
As long as we allow either party to run our lives from the federal level we lose.
If the GOP and Democrats (CIA and FBI) had respected the Constitution, Obama would not have been allowed to run.
As alleged biological and adoptive son of foreign nationals, and with his background, he is completely unqualified.
The interesting thing is that if Alonzo had been blogging in 1863, would he have advised Lincoln to stay away from the emancipation proclamation and let the Congress handle the issue? Had Lincoln avoided his dictatorial stance on slavery, if Lincoln had used a more conciliatory method the bring about the end of slavery, he would not have been ham-strung and castrated the Republican Party for 200 years.
God save us from these saviors.
Comment Policy: Please read our new comment policy before making a comment. In short, please be respectful of others and do not engage in personal attacks. Otherwise we will revoke your comment privileges.