Sylvia Thompson
No, we are not all libertarians
By Sylvia Thompson
In response to an article posted on 3/19/2013, written by Jacob Perry for the Conservative Intelligence Briefing blog, I penned the following statement. Perry's article is titled "We're All Libertarians Now." I say resoundingly, "No, we are not."
As a conservative Christian, I oppose libertarianism and conclude that it is impractical primarily because it is a godless ideology. As Mr. Perry indicated in his article, Libertarians hold that moral issues have no place in governing but should be left to the church.
That is not, however, the position of the Founders of the United States. They based the Constitution upon Judeo-Christian principles (and this is historical fact). Without those principles, the Constitution is an unworkable tool, as some of the Founders so aptly acknowledged in their writings. In a similar vein, capitalism devoid of Judeo-Christian underpinnings is as unworkable as socialism. The Constitution was not written for a godless people.
It is the godless quality of libertarianism that will not fly with most Americans. That's not to say that all who embrace libertarianism are themselves godless, but their ideology makes no connection to God. Traditional conservatism does make that connection. The difference between these two ideologies explains why Libertarians can embrace the homosexual agenda and other morally unacceptable behaviors. Individual liberty trumps all else; nobody or nothing can infringe upon it. Judeo-Christian conservatives cannot embrace such idealism. Biblical morality is the determiner of what is and is not acceptable. We know that the individual liberty of one person generally always infringes upon the individual liberty of someone else; therefore, the arbiter of human behavior must be outside the human realm.
It is noticeable that Rand Paul, whom Mr. Perry extols in his article, stresses openly his socially conservative view of the right of the pre-born to life. He does so even as he holds to some principles of libertarianism (he calls it "constitutional conservatism"). It is very unlikely that Rand Paul would have had the solid support of the Tea Party movement if it were otherwise. Although Libertarians and establishment Republicans will never admit it, the majority of Tea Party supporters are social conservatives.
Four million Republican voters (who voted in 2008) chose to pass on the 2012 elections. And I would wager that most were values conservatives. Having for many years carried water for establishment Republican leaders, those conservatives finally said "No more!" And the Libertarian Neal Boortz denigrated them as a group. How dare they have the gall to tell the establishment "Win the election without us."
Boortz's rant was not only evidence of how full of himself he is, but it was also an example of libertarian elitism at its most obnoxious. This quote from Jacob Perry's article is another example: "Libertarians have resurfaced by taking the basic arguments of the Tea Party, adding some intellectual heft while eliminating the hysterics." (Emphasis mine.)
Yes, that decision not to vote enabled Obama to be re-elected with an even slimmer margin than in 2008, but those Republicans who deliberately stayed home in 2012 are not "low-information" types. For the most part, they are knowledgeable people of principle. They know that they will survive Obama, because even if he succeeds in destroying America as it was founded, he will never destroy Judeo-Christianity.
Further, traditional conservatives (of which I am one, although I reluctantly voted for Romney) know that Republican leaders despise them. Nonetheless, they have continually held their noses and voted the lesser evil that the establishment presents to them. This time was different and I think they will continue to avoid a secular conservative party dominated by Libertarians.
At some point, a third party will arise that is devoted to conservatism in all its ramifications: Judeo-Christian values (passed down from the Founders), fiscal sanity and less intrusive government, and strong national defense (which does not mean nation-building, but rather keeping America and its interests secure). And within Judeo-Christian principles are embedded the individual rights that Libertarians so cherish. God has granted these rights to all humans. But because He grants them, He dictates their use and limits.
And finally, I contend that a Libertarian-dominated Republican party that has shed all God-driven moral values will continue to lose elections. That is because it will not be able to hold a candle to the "Party of godlessness," the Democrats. Consequently, a secular conservative Republican Party will eventually fade into oblivion. One fewer godless political party will be a net gain for American conservatism.
© Sylvia Thompson
March 30, 2013
In response to an article posted on 3/19/2013, written by Jacob Perry for the Conservative Intelligence Briefing blog, I penned the following statement. Perry's article is titled "We're All Libertarians Now." I say resoundingly, "No, we are not."
As a conservative Christian, I oppose libertarianism and conclude that it is impractical primarily because it is a godless ideology. As Mr. Perry indicated in his article, Libertarians hold that moral issues have no place in governing but should be left to the church.
That is not, however, the position of the Founders of the United States. They based the Constitution upon Judeo-Christian principles (and this is historical fact). Without those principles, the Constitution is an unworkable tool, as some of the Founders so aptly acknowledged in their writings. In a similar vein, capitalism devoid of Judeo-Christian underpinnings is as unworkable as socialism. The Constitution was not written for a godless people.
It is the godless quality of libertarianism that will not fly with most Americans. That's not to say that all who embrace libertarianism are themselves godless, but their ideology makes no connection to God. Traditional conservatism does make that connection. The difference between these two ideologies explains why Libertarians can embrace the homosexual agenda and other morally unacceptable behaviors. Individual liberty trumps all else; nobody or nothing can infringe upon it. Judeo-Christian conservatives cannot embrace such idealism. Biblical morality is the determiner of what is and is not acceptable. We know that the individual liberty of one person generally always infringes upon the individual liberty of someone else; therefore, the arbiter of human behavior must be outside the human realm.
It is noticeable that Rand Paul, whom Mr. Perry extols in his article, stresses openly his socially conservative view of the right of the pre-born to life. He does so even as he holds to some principles of libertarianism (he calls it "constitutional conservatism"). It is very unlikely that Rand Paul would have had the solid support of the Tea Party movement if it were otherwise. Although Libertarians and establishment Republicans will never admit it, the majority of Tea Party supporters are social conservatives.
Four million Republican voters (who voted in 2008) chose to pass on the 2012 elections. And I would wager that most were values conservatives. Having for many years carried water for establishment Republican leaders, those conservatives finally said "No more!" And the Libertarian Neal Boortz denigrated them as a group. How dare they have the gall to tell the establishment "Win the election without us."
Boortz's rant was not only evidence of how full of himself he is, but it was also an example of libertarian elitism at its most obnoxious. This quote from Jacob Perry's article is another example: "Libertarians have resurfaced by taking the basic arguments of the Tea Party, adding some intellectual heft while eliminating the hysterics." (Emphasis mine.)
Yes, that decision not to vote enabled Obama to be re-elected with an even slimmer margin than in 2008, but those Republicans who deliberately stayed home in 2012 are not "low-information" types. For the most part, they are knowledgeable people of principle. They know that they will survive Obama, because even if he succeeds in destroying America as it was founded, he will never destroy Judeo-Christianity.
Further, traditional conservatives (of which I am one, although I reluctantly voted for Romney) know that Republican leaders despise them. Nonetheless, they have continually held their noses and voted the lesser evil that the establishment presents to them. This time was different and I think they will continue to avoid a secular conservative party dominated by Libertarians.
At some point, a third party will arise that is devoted to conservatism in all its ramifications: Judeo-Christian values (passed down from the Founders), fiscal sanity and less intrusive government, and strong national defense (which does not mean nation-building, but rather keeping America and its interests secure). And within Judeo-Christian principles are embedded the individual rights that Libertarians so cherish. God has granted these rights to all humans. But because He grants them, He dictates their use and limits.
And finally, I contend that a Libertarian-dominated Republican party that has shed all God-driven moral values will continue to lose elections. That is because it will not be able to hold a candle to the "Party of godlessness," the Democrats. Consequently, a secular conservative Republican Party will eventually fade into oblivion. One fewer godless political party will be a net gain for American conservatism.
© Sylvia Thompson
The views expressed by RenewAmerica columnists are their own and do not necessarily reflect the position of RenewAmerica or its affiliates.
(See RenewAmerica's publishing standards.)
