One Republican Party -- two different camps?

[Astaroth]

Alright, so this has been bugging me for a while. For some reason it seems that the US Republican Party is composed of two quite different camps.

Some believe the govt should impose their (conservative) values on others, others don't want the govt to impose any values at all.

Some believe gay marriage should be banned, others want any kind of govt recognition of marriage to disappear.

Some believe that Creationism should be taught in public schools, others don't want any public schools.

Some primarily believe in their (religious) values, others value freedom the most.

Now of course it isn't surprising that such a huge party consists of many different views -- but what I find so fascinating is that yoiu can almost split the whole party into two parts: the (socially) conservative camp and the libertarian-leaning group.

My question is: how can these two groups work together as one party? What unites them?

How can a highly educated atheist libertarian vote for the same party as a strictly religious creationist from Mississippi?

How can one party contain a group that wants America to have an aggressive foreign policy and invade Iran AND another group that has isolationist views?

Again, all of this wouldn't be so surprising if those two groups weren't so opposed in so many different ways. E.g., the social conservatives are generally more... pro-interventionism/support the state imposing their values on others/are religious .... whereas the other group is ... anti-interventionism/against the state imposing anything/less religious etc.

How can this be? Why have those two camps not long split into two seperate parties?

[Admiral Piett]

There's three camps. One that is kind of a combination of both, the conservatives like Romney and McCain.

[Menelik_I]

How can this be? Why have those two camps not long split into two seperate parties?

This would obviously hand victory to the opposition, in this case Democrats, in most countries such split between moderate and hardliners always hand victory to a their common enemy. It also depends on the details of the American electoral system.

Here for example in the UK the Conservatives are running scarred of UKIP splitting their votes and scoring major defections. The trick seems to be to forces surrender of the other faction using the threat of defeat at the end of your common enemy, in this case Labour.

For the rest I am going to shut up because I don't know anything.

A funny thing is that this is not something new it seems :

One of the heroes of the conservative movement is Barry Goldwater who famously told conservatives to "grow up" at the 1960 Republican Convention and vote for Nixon in 1960.

You can watch the speech here

[Astaroth]

This would obviously hand victory to the opposition, in this case Democrats, in most countries such split between moderate and hardliners always hand victory to a their common enemy.

But it doesn't even have anything to do with hardliners or moderates. It seems like those two camps don't even have anything in common with each other.

I'm not an American, but if I was a libertarian and lived in the US I probably couldn't bring myself to vote along with the hawks/creationists/"I force my religious values on you" - camp. =/

That seems to be diametrically opposed to anything libertarianism stands for.

[Menelik_I]

But it doesn't even have anything to do with hardliners or moderates. It seems like those two camps don't even have anything in common with each other.

I'm not an American, but if I was a libertarian and lived in the US I probably couldn't bring myself to vote along with the hawks/creationists/"I force my religious values on you" - camp. =/

That seems to be diametrically opposed to anything libertarianism stands for.

I would advise that you make a distinction between how the Democrats paint the republicans, and what the republican platform it. Or even do it in general with parties, that was some very pushy stereotyping there.

To answer the question I recommend you watch this speech of PJ O'Rourke about the two party system, He is a Libertarian and a Republican, and was arguing in favor of a 2 party system. Maybe you will find an answer there.

Starts at 12:00 in the video.

[molonthegreat]

But it doesn't even have anything to do with hardliners or moderates. It seems like those two camps don't even have anything in common with each other.

I'm not an American, but if I was a libertarian and lived in the US I probably couldn't bring myself to vote along with the hawks/creationists/"I force my religious values on you" - camp. =/

That seems to be diametrically opposed to anything libertarianism stands for.

Since at least those creationists are much better when it comes to fiscal conservatism and actually managing the economy than the democrats, since while some republicans may be bad the democrats are much worse with their rampant spending and support of handouts. That is at least how I would reason if I would live in the US.

[Astaroth]

Since at least those creationists are much better when it comes to fiscal conservatism and actually managing the economy than the democrats, since while some republicans may be bad the democrats are much worse with their rampant spending and support of handouts. That is at least how I would reason if I would live in the US.

So to put it in really simple terms: libertarians care more about economic freedom than the state meddling with social aspects?

Or to put it differently: you are fine with abortion bans, no gay marriage, interventionism etc. as long as it comes with less spending?

And please no "a free economy is needed for a free country"; let's not turn this into a thread about libertarianism.

[molonthegreat]

So to put it in really simple terms: libertarians care more about economic freedom than the state meddling with social aspects?

Or to put it differently: you are fine with abortion bans, no gay marriage, interventionism etc. as long as it comes with less spending?

And please no "a free economy is needed for a free country"; let's not turn this into a thread about libertarianism.

I don't claim to speak for all libertarians but for me a sound economic policy is the most important part especially in the US during the current climate, I'm not all ok with abortion bans etc but I think that the economy is the most important thing that needs to be fixed. Furthermore the creationists etc are also very supportive of gun rights which also are something that I think is quite important.

[Col. Tartleton]

So to put it in really simple terms: libertarians care more about economic freedom than the state meddling with social aspects?

Or to put it differently: you are fine with abortion bans, no gay marriage, interventionism etc. as long as it comes with less spending?

And please no "a free economy is needed for a free country"; let's not turn this into a thread about libertarianism.

I'm also in the Libertarian camp, but I'm not sure those issues are really cleanly libertarian.

See Abortion is basically a question about whether terminating a life is criminal or not which is pretty unrelated to libertarianism. It's a modern liberal notion, but I don't think it holds much water in the Libertarian field because one of the core 2 rules of Libertarianism is to not harm others without their explicit consent. I think it is criminal. It's not exactly a murder scenario, but it has too much in common with a first degree murder to allow me pretend it's okay. I think that there's enough birth control and condoms available that if you are having sex and get pregnant it's on the girl to keep it and the guy to support it. A woman's "right to choose" is going to lose out to a fetal "right to life" every time. It's just common sense Classical Liberalism.

Again, there's no reason to have a government role in marriage. A marriage is between two people and if there is a third party involved it ought to be the sacred, not government. The only reason why government is involved is some kind of retarded syphilis thing IIRC.

By interventionism, do you mean political, economic, or military intervention?


Fundamentally as a Liberal, I believe that it's my duty to protect social conservatives as long as they play by the rules. A dislike of some or all homosexuals/homosexuality does not translate into harming those people. Just like dressing like a Nazi and marching around with 5 like minded people as a full sized actual Neo-Nazi rally isn't harming anyone. Obviously if you're confrontational that's an assault.

There's no place in the free world for political correctness or hate crimes.

Gay Marriage is legal in my state. However, I'd like to abolish the state function of marriage entirely.

[Dr. Croccer]

How can this be? Why have those two camps not long split into two seperate parties?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spoiler_effect

If the Republican party were ever to break up the Democrats would rule indefinitely.

[Kitsunegari]

If the Republican party were ever to break up the Democrats would rule indefinitely.

Not necessarily, the Democrats' main competition before 1856 was the Whig party, however after it split up the end result was almost six decades of Republican domination. Of course there was also an actual war involved lol.

[Astaroth]

@Dr Croccer: Thanks, but I was aware of that. I still find it so fascinating --

I mean, despite some recent events under the Obama presidency, the Democrats seem to be more socially liberal (as in, less state intervention, more social freedom) than the Republicans. The Republicans on the other hand are more socially conservative (and often don't mind forcing their values on others) yet are against state intervention on the economic level.

Libertarians generally should be both socially liberal and economically conservative (=less state intervention in private/social matters and in the economy).

But the fact that they choose to side with the Republicans almost all the time seems to indicate that they care a lot more about economic freedom (ie less taxes, less spending) than about social freedom (no state in my bedroom etc.).

Interestingly, the same happens in Germany. For the last 40 or so years, our libertarian (well, not really but okay) party FDP has sided with the conservatives. Which imo seems quite contradictorty.

----

So would it be a correct assumption that libertarians are mainly economically libertarian with the social matters being more of a secondary/largely irrelevant concern?

[chilon]

Interestingly, the same happens in Germany. For the last 40 or so years, our libertarian (well, not really but okay) party FDP has sided with the conservatives. Which imo seems quite contradictorty.

You would need a realignment of parties based around several new core issues that technology might induce. Francis Fukuyama wrote years ago about him believe bio-technologies would be this turning point. As genetics and biological sciences advances there will be more areas where religious democrats and some "green" people from Democrat side start agreeing less and less with the technocrats from the Dems. At the same time the more biological issues become important politically, the more the religious social conservatives might drift from the various types of libertarians in the Republican party.

So you might eventually see the religious Democrats, religious social conservatives and some of the all organic green people split off while the technocrat Democrats and libertarian Republicans forge a closer alliance. This would still be a two party system but the platforms of the opposing parties would be based on a different set of common interests and political alignment than what we have currently. It would be like a Natural/Religion party vs a Technocrat party.

[xcorps]

@Dr Croccer: Thanks, but I was aware of that. I still find it so fascinating --

I mean, despite some recent events under the Obama presidency, the Democrats seem to be more socially liberal (as in, less state intervention, more social freedom) than the Republicans. The Republicans on the other hand are more socially conservative (and often don't mind forcing their values on others) yet are against state intervention on the economic level.

Libertarians generally should be both socially liberal and economically conservative (=less state intervention in private/social matters and in the economy).

But the fact that they choose to side with the Republicans almost all the time seems to indicate that they care a lot more about economic freedom (ie less taxes, less spending) than about social freedom (no state in my bedroom etc.).

Interestingly, the same happens in Germany. For the last 40 or so years, our libertarian (well, not really but okay) party FDP has sided with the conservatives. Which imo seems quite contradictorty.

----

So would it be a correct assumption that libertarians are mainly economically libertarian with the social matters being more of a secondary/largely irrelevant concern?

Well, I'm socially conservative. I'm morally opposed to abortion, homosexual behavior, promiscuity, drug use, prostituion, pornography, divorce, abortion, and gambling. I believe in God. I think this would be a better country and a better world if everyone had the same values that I do.

However, I also believe in the morality of freedom. I believe that the morality of freedom is the absolute and fundamental concept that trumps all others. This includes the freedom to believe differently than I do, it includes the freedom to have abortions, use drugs, and for people of the same sex to get married. I do not subscribe to the notion that morality can be legislated. That doesn't make me socially liberal, it just means I have a better understanding of what freedom is than what the Moral Majority pretends to subscribe to.

I generally vote Republican because generally the GoP candidate I vote for generally is the one with whom my own values are most aligned. That type of candidate is becoming much rarer throughout government in the last 15 or so years. The ones most likely to closely align to what I believe end up being marginal candidates and poor statesmen, unfortunately. Ron Paul is a good example. I share many of Ron Pauls convictions, but at the end of the day, he's a little bit nutty and doesn't know as much as he thinks he does. His foreign policy is garbage, and his monetary policy is questionable at best. Rick Santorum is a RINO, Mitt Romeny is Obama with lighter skin, Obama is Bush without the pitchfork and pointed tail, Bush was Clinton with a war.

So yeah, I'm looking forward to another decade of business as usual: In the executive, constant increase in the power of government through regulation and spending, hopefully a Senate that will remain a Democrat majority that will gridlock the issuance of legislation, and a judiciary that looks like a circus.

[Astaroth]

However, I also believe in the morality of freedom. I believe that the morality of freedom is the absolute and fundamental concept that trumps all others. This includes the freedom to believe differently than I do, it includes the freedom to have abortions, use drugs, and for people of the same sex to get married. I do not subscribe to the notion that morality can be legislated. That doesn't make me socially liberal, it just means I have a better understanding of what freedom is than what the Moral Majority pretends to subscribe to.

Perhaps I should have clarified, I meant socially libertarian rather than socially liberal (damn the US and their annoying misuse of terms such as liberalism ). What you described makes you socially libertarian and imo the Democrats are generall more socially libertarian than the Republicans are.

I generally vote Republican because generally the GoP candidate I vote for generally is the one with whom my own values are most aligned. That type of candidate is becoming much rarer throughout government in the last 15 or so years. The ones most likely to closely align to what I believe end up being marginal candidates and poor statesmen, unfortunately. Ron Paul is a good example. I share many of Ron Pauls convictions, but at the end of the day, he's a little bit nutty and doesn't know as much as he thinks he does. His foreign policy is garbage, and his monetary policy is questionable at best. Rick Santorum is a RINO, Mitt Romeny is Obama with lighter skin, Obama is Bush without the pitchfork and pointed tail, Bush was Clinton with a war.

So yeah, I'm looking forward to another decade of business as usual: In the executive, constant increase in the power of government through regulation and spending, hopefully a Senate that will remain a Democrat majority that will gridlock the issuance of legislation, and a judiciary that looks like a circus.

Of course everyone is different and has his own reasons for voting for one party or another.

Still, since you brought up your own views as an example: to me (as a non-American) the Democrats seem to be more socially libertarian (=less state in my bedroom) yet less libertarian when it comes to spending/the govt's role in the economy.

Therefore, I think it's interesting how the libertarians in the US overwhelmingly seem to prefer economic libertarianism...

[molonthegreat]

Still, since you brought up your own views as an example: to me (as a non-American) the Democrats seem to be more socially libertarian (=less state in my bedroom) yet less libertarian when it comes to spending/the govt's role in the economy.

Therefore, I think it's interesting how the libertarians in the US overwhelmingly seem to prefer economic libertarianism...

Well the democrats aren't that socially libertarian seeing how they want to involve themselves in people's life by making it harder for gun owners and for people to defend themselves against criminals, dictate how you will run your business and that they generally are more supportive of affirmative action.

[Kitsunegari]

So would it be a correct assumption that libertarians are mainly economically libertarian with the social matters being more of a secondary/largely irrelevant concern?

The problem is that "libertarian" is a very vague term here in the US, i doubt many actual Republicans would support a fully libertarian platform, even if they use the term sometimes themselves. If this were parliamentary politics like in Germany something like a coalition might be the result but the US leans strongly to two parties.

[DarthShizNit]

Because we have to stop those godless communists from turning us into socialist France with their fascist rulers!!!!
The republican party of today is a kerfuffle of several different ideologies that all share a common hatred of a centralized government because of the (supposed) inherent evils that come along with a large federal government that seeks to regulate stuff. For most of their history in the last few decades, they've had those godless communist across the sea to focus on. But then those bastards had to go and lose, and we are now left with nothing resembling a massive and evil central government. They try to make it sound like the democrats are at least trying to accomplish that, but let’s face it, the Dems aren’t that competent. So you are now left with a bunch of ideologies (some of which can be radically different) trying to find their place (take over) the party they are in, or gather enough steam to form their own parties. But to simply answer your question, what keeps them in the same party is what has always kept them in the same party, the scary left. IF we had a different system then you would most likely see different parties, but the way it's structured, it is simply more efficient to try to gut one of the existing parties and take control, that's the way it's always been. It would take an equal split in the Democratic Party into two parties to plausibly allow the republican camps to go their separate way. As long as the left has one party, so will the right.

[Astaroth]

Let's not make this about Dems vs Reps, please.

Of course I'm generalizing a bit, but I think my point still stands.

[molonthegreat]

Let's not make this about Dems vs Reps, please.

Of course I'm generalizing a bit, but I think my point still stands.

Well you claim that the democrats are very socially libertarian but it's quite frankly wrong since they are more negative in general against gun rights and the right to self-defence which is a very important social freedom.