POST SCRIPTS

(1) Social Policy and the government’s right or role concerning intervention into individual behavior. Or in another sense the “Legislating of Morality”. (2)Foreign Policy and the limits to which government should use military force; i.e. Peace Keeping, Declaring War, and Preemption policy. (3) Economic policy, specifically dealing with free trade concepts.

Now while these issues may sound momentous, it is important to understand that conservatives and libertarians share many of the same principles. Where they differ is in the extent to which those principles are applied, or the practical exceptions to them.

In this battle of ideas I personally place the score as…

Social Policy: Winner = Conservatives
Foreign Policy: Winner = Tie
Economic Policy: Winner = Libertarians

We’ll Start with Social Policy.

Burke probably provides the best and most articulate defense of the role of tradition in society and politics. Conservatives have long argued for official policy which attempts to provide some defense for traditional “American” values. You see this demonstrated on 3 major fronts.

1. The role of Religion and tradition in society.
2. The Pro-Life movement
3. The defense of traditional marriage

While conservative social policy is not limited to these issues, it is fair to say that they have provided much of the foundation for both conservative policy, and libertarian opposition.

The reason why I give the victory to the conservatives on this issue is simple. I believe that history has demonstrated that to attempt to separate the social and traditional from the economic and political is fool hardy.

I simply do not think that you can overlook the importance of culture and tradition and its influence on the economic and political. If we truly believe that this American experiment is unique, then how can we insist that it exist apart from our social traditions and institutions?

The founders were decidedly pro- religion. This does not mean that they were all Christian, or even religious themselves, but all of them with perhaps the exception of Thomas Paine, realized the vital role that religion plays in society.

Concerning abortion. First of all, no self respecting believer in the Constitution, nor any admirer of the law can expect to maintain any semblance of intellectual honesty, while supporting the legitimacy of Roe vs. Wade. It was amongst other things, incredibly bad law, and perhaps the most poignant example of “legislating from the bench”.

Abortion according to simple scientific and legal language could be defined as the systematic and premeditated destruction of innocent human life. And as US law is currently interpreted, you could add to that statement”…for no greater purpose than personal convenience.” If there is one thing conservatives and Libertarians should be able to agree on, it is that government’s first and most important responsibility is the protection of innocent human life. It is time for Libertarians to recognize, as Ron Paul has, that since human life does in fact begin at conception, then that life should be entitled to the most basic rights laid out in the Declaration of Independence.

The protection of traditional marriage is fundamental to protecting families; and the protection of the family is essential to the preservation of the culture which provided us with the Declaration of Independence, Constitution, Bill of Rights, etc. Is it really so odd that we choose to reward that institution which has been so critical to the advancement and nurturing of society? Are we really expected to throw out thousands of years of social history in the name of false equality? I certainly hope that we have not reached a position of such historical ignorance and cultural relativism that we would presume to embark on such a reckless path of social engineering. If a constitutional amendment is necessary to protect this institution, than so be it.

Moving on to foreign policy…

Foreign policy has to be considered a tie, if we are to assume that Ron Paul speaks for a large constituency within the Libertarian movement.

America should not be fitting the bill for the rest of the world’s defense. We should not feel compelled to engage in every hot spot through out the globe, in order to maintain stability. And we are NOT responsible for bringing democracy to the world through military engagement.

What we are responsible for is the protection of US interests and security. In a world where small non state actors can have an influence on the largest economy in the world in a period of 45 min. we must be prepared to act decisively when appropriate. While we should not bear the burden of providing security to the world, we must be keen to understand when coming to the aid of an ally serves not only their interest but our own. And above all we must understand that large wars, in many cases, could have been prevented by much smaller military engagements, had the leaders of the time had the determination and foresight to fight them. This is more evident now then it has ever been in history, and the trend will continue in its current direction.

This will at times require what is commonly refferd to as "nation building". In such cases we should only embark on such a difficult and demanding path if it can be adequately determined to be in the long term security intrests of the United States.

And finally economic policy...

Conservatives such as Russel Kirk and other have advocated protectionsit trade policy for purpose's ranging from preserving culture to ensuring the strength of domestic industry.

While there is an argument for subsidizing the defense industry in order to ensure the production of critical equipment during time of war, applying the same principle to other non essential industry ranging from sugar production to various manufacturing industries is counter productive.

Arguments ranging from economic expediency to morale obligation have failed to explain why we should refuse to let free market principles work on an international scale.

Attempting to protect ones culture by preventing international trade ignores the connection between economic strength and national as well as cultural solvency. Economic power is essential to military power, cultural dominance and individual liberty.

On the other hand, attempting to ensure domestic industrial prowess through government protection or subsidization undermines the free market by preventing competition and supporting buisness at the expense of the consumer. And lest we forget, it is the consumer which drives production, any other arrangement leads to waste.

Libertarians have been screaming this at the top of their lungs for decades now. With the exception of the Reagan administration, to many "conservative" presidents have given in to the temptation of using government to "solve" economic problems.

The only way the United States can hope to maintain its economic strength is through a fundamental return to free market policies and respect for private property at all levels. This means a large downsizing of government, the gradual dismantling of our entitlement programs, lowering taxes, deregulation etc. We cannot continue down a path of wealth redistribution and an economic policy based off of "need" rather than ability.

Where do we go from here...

Niether the Conservatives nor the Libertarians have benefited from the descension between our two similar ideologies. So our question is simple; what is the most effective way for conservatives and libertarians to advance their policies.

I advocate a libertarian return to the Republican Party. After close to 40 years, the Libertarian Party has been unable to change the political direction of the country in their favor. And the absence of badly needed libertarian intellectual pull has resulted in a slow war of attrition between conservatives and moderates for the heart of the Republican party. We are now seeing an amoglamation of social coservatism with "moderate" economic policy. The new conservatives bear little resemblance to the traditional conservatism of Ronlad Reagan. Some conservatives are feeling the pull from the moderates of the party, and in order to hold their ground on issues such as abortion, gun rights, tax cuts, etc. they are giving ground on government spending and entitlement programs.

In short, I as a conservative, fighting for a party that used to belong to both of us, am calling for support. We are fighting a delaying action; an action that will most likely fail if we do not recieve the badly needed reinforcements from our intellectual and ideological allies.

Libertarians are perhaps he last group of people who require a history lesson, but I will be so bold as to remind you all of the history of representative government throughout history. It has been said that democracy has a shelf life of 200 years. At close to 230 we have beaten the odds, so to speak. But you all understand that the trends are not in our favor. Socialism is making its case in America stronger than ever. Once a large sector of the population has warmed to the idea, that they may steal from their neighbor to enrich themselves, and do so under the color of morale superiority; economic and political collapse is the only logical endstate.

Understanding the present conditions ask yourself what your responsibility is to our country, your principles, your posterity and yourself. Then ask what is the most effective way to fight for those principles. Edmund Burke said it far better than I have ever read or heard since...

"It is not enough in a situation of trust in the commonwealth, that a man means well to his country; it is not enough that in his single person he never did an evil act, but always voted according to his conscience, and even harangued against every evil design which he apprehended to be prejudicial to his country. This innoxious and ineffectual character, that seems formed upon a plan of apology and disculpation, falls miserably short of the mark of public duty. That duty demand and requires, that what is right should not only be made known, but made prevalent; that what is evil should not only be detected, but defeated. When the public man omits to put himself in a situation of doing his duty with effect, it is an omission that frustrates the purposes of his trust almost as much as if he had formally betrayed it. It is surely no very rational account of a mans life, that he always acted right, but has taken special care, to act in such a manner that his endeavors could not possibly be productive of any consequence.

Edmund Burke - "Thoughts on the Cause of our Present Discontents" (1770)