George Rebane
Years ago as my socio-political outlook took shape, I had a hard time fitting myself into the well-defined boxes labeled Conservative and Libertarian. When I started writing RR and sought to spell things out as unambiguously as possible – my penchant for ‘operational definitions’ – I ran into the problem of what to call myself in the lively debates that have become the hallmark of this blog. Since my belief system was an amalgam drawn from both camps, some years back I came up with ‘conservetarianism’ (note the spelling) as a label for it.
Well, it turns out that I’m not the only one who has had to cobble together tenets from those two political camps. Just out is the new book The Consrvatarian Manifesto: Libertarians, Conservatives, and fight for the Right’s future by Charles C.W. Cooke of the National Review. (You can see an interview with him on Reason magazine here.) From what I’ve heard about Cooke’s elucidation of this newly labeled ideology, I seem to be in accord with everything except my spelling, which I will now gladly cede to the new convention.
The hardcopy is on order, and after reading it I will cite any exceptions I take with Cooke’s work. But in sum, I am a social animal who has been willing to remain the lone fox in the field if necessary, but nevertheless happy now that others have also come to share similar thoughts on a new and, I believe, important dimension of socio-political ideology which has finally been nationally christened. We shall see where all this goes in the scheme of ‘right-leaning’ politics – maybe it can accrete around it a new political party to give the Republicans a run, but only if there will arise a new left-leaning party to give the Democrats equal apprehension. That will really turn our elections into something exciting wherein voters have a greater choice.
George, congratulations on finding a bird of the feather to flock wherever. I'd suggest completely abandoning the idea of another party in which to flock... resign yourself to remaining GOP and pulling them to a more libertarian center. Big tents tend to win elections, small tents don't.
A problem with Libertarian brand libertarians are that whenever they flock together, a core group devolves into an "I'm more libertarian than you" contest, trying to define an ideal rather than just getting on with life and agreeing to disagree on the fringes. Such is often the fate of 3rd parties. There was a time that the LP had a chance of breaking out (the Ed Clark/Ron Paul years) but much of the seed corn got wasted fighting for ballot access which is there to keep 3rd parties from muddying the
two party waters.
Posted by: Gregory | 11 June 2015 at 08:43 AM
Most people know that a singleton third party will not only lose, but cause its nearest ideological big party to also lose. That is why the fringe parties must enter the fray in offsetting pairs to give rise to a possible coalition in Congress. The presidential elections should be even more fun.
To continue to hope that the major parties' tents will/can be stretched large enough to accomodate the widening ideological ranges if futile - I don't believe such that such a politically pliable polyester exists. Bernie and Liz may yet feel the need to revive the American Socialist Party which gave up the ghost right after WW2.
I failed to mention that my own conservatarian credo is detailed and available through the link in the upper right margin of this page. (It still reflects my dated spelling which I plan to correct in the by and by.)
Posted by: George Rebane | 11 June 2015 at 09:05 AM