Once the older generations in America die, so will social conservatism

The biggest threat to conservatives right now is President Barack Obama, but the long-term threat to conservatism is an internal threat– young republicans. The RNC is doing everything in its power to prevent them from gaining power, but will it work?

If you were to talk to any reporter covering this year’s election they’ll tell you that most of the attendees at GOP events are over 40 years old. You can’t help but ask yourself “where are the young people?” Well, they’re busy organizing a libertarian take-over of the GOP.

Young republicans aren’t on board with social conservatism, instead we’re seeing an unprecedented level of enthusiasm for libertarianism.  Many of my conservative colleagues will argue that, “ah, this is just a phase amongst young republicans.” But being socially liberal isn’t a phase. What we’re seeing is a cultural shift that is inevitably going to force the Republican Party to make some major platform adjustments. For example, take gay marriage. Millennials have grown up a time where it’s no longer taboo to be openly gay. Our favorite films and television shows have gay characters. Some of the most prominent figures in American culture are openly gay. If you look at the polls, public opinion has moved sharply in favor of gay marriage in recent years with 76% of 18-34 year olds saying that the law should recognize same sex marriage.

What also attracts young republicans to libertarianism is their support of a non-interventionist foreign policy. Millennials have spent almost half of their lives living with their country at war and, unfortunately for the GOP, they don’t seem to be as supportive of a strong interventionist foreign policy as older conservatives. Just look at who the American youth lent their support to in 2008—Obama. A non-interventionist foreign policy was the single issue most identified with Obama back in 2008, when he got 66% of the 18-29 vote.

The young libertarians in the Republican Party make up some of the most active grassroots activists who worked throughout this election year increasing support for libertarianism on the state level by racking up delegates and taking over state committees and conventions. Instead of figuring out a way to take advantage of this extraordinary young energy by making some concessions, the RNC has decided to do everything in it’s power to limit their influence.

At last week’s convention, a controversial vote took place aimed at preventing this youthful libertarian momentum from gaining influence within the party. A new rule was voted on and passed which now allows the Republican National Committee to change any of the party’s rules between party conventions without the consent of delegates. All they would need is a supermajority – three quarters of it’s members. What this does is strip away power from the local, young grassroots folks and gives it to the RNC. So the flow of power is now top-down, thus preventing young libertarian activists from exerting influence.

The RNC is so determined to stop this movement that they didn’t even allow for a fair fight. The controversial vote was already decided on before the vote took place. Yes, you read correctly. Before.  Watch the video below of Speaker Boehner’s teleprompter during the vote. You’ll see that the outcome of the vote (“the ayes have it”) had been predetermined and put into the teleprompter.

These young libertarians might be fiscal hawks who make Paul Ryan look like a dove in comparison, but their stance on social issues like gay marriage scares conservatives. The RNC defeated them this year by successfully changing the rules and discrediting Ron Paul’s libertarian message, but the enthusiasm that Paul has generated and the ideas he’s advanced among young republicans isn’t likely to go away. It’s a potent force that will likely increase in time.

Visit any college campus and you’ll see that the most active political groups are not the College Republicans or the College Democrats. The most politically active groups are the libertarian-leaning “Student for Liberty” groups. Libertarian groups like  Young Americans for Liberty and Students for Liberty have taken over college campuses by working non-stop to educate and groom republican students to have the charisma and speaking skills of a Marco Rubio, but the ideas and knowledge of Ron Paul.

The Republican establishment has every right to be worried about the unpopularity of social conservatism among young Americans because, as of right now, it looks as if once the older generations in America die, so will social conservatism.

About these ads

Posted on September 3, 2012, in Uncategorized and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink. 49 Comments.

  1. Libertarians don’t realize that protecting life and the natural family (a.k.a social issues) are foundational to smaller government and fiscal responsibility, and therefore is (and should be) a national issue. Libertarians, especially of the Ron Paul ilk, and the theory of “blowback” is an anti-colonial sentiment confusing British style socialist colonialism with the anti-colonialism of our founding fathers. Ron Paul doesn’t seem to acknowledge Sharia Law and it’s theo-political nature. Other than that, the Libertaran view of the Federal Reserve and getting rid of proven useless big government bureaucracies like the Dept of Education or the Dept of Agriculture are the only views that should warrant serious consideration.

    • You can’t have “smaller government” at the same time you have a government powerful enough to regulate interpersonal, familial, and romantic relationships. You can’t have a “smaller government” when you use military force to decide what kind of governments should be established and recognized on the other side of the world.

      I’m sorry, but the Republican party needs to just stop talking about small government and individual liberty. A small government can’t deliver the massive, no GLOBAL, level of social engineering they demand, and the liberty of those who don’t share your social traditions doesn’t seem to matter in the least.

    • I believe I can safely say that you don’t have a very solid background in biology, anthropology, or sociology if you’re claiming the nuclear family (two parents, 1-2 kids as basic family unit) is ‘natural’.

      It is deviant from all norms, be it biological, anthropological, or sociological. The most common family type in the US is the single parent family (seen as ‘undesireable’, and therefore as abnormal when it in fact accounts for the plurality of families), the most common family in the world being the extended family, often a tribal patriarchy. Nuclear families are only even close to significant in two types of cultures: Forager/Hunter-Gatherers and urban industrialists, as both groups move around a great deal and require a small, mobile family unit to pursue food (or in the case of an urban industrial nation, job opportunities).

      Your ‘natural family’, I regret to say, is a statistical deviant in almost every conceivable way.

      Additionally, if you are going to use the term ‘natural’ to argue against gay marriage, then you should consider getting a more substantial education in biology. Out of the small number of organisms that utilize sexual reproduction, several display homosexual tendencies as well, such as all of the great ape species, and most higher mammals.
      (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/06/090616122106.htm)

      In many species of schooling fish, if there are no males present in the school, the imbalance of hormones released by said fish will result in one or more of those fish actually changing sex, and becoming male.

      Your ideas of sexuality and procreation are very limited if you consider the heterosexual nuclear family to be the only ‘natural’ model. Nature has thousands of different models for reproduction, from meiosis, to asexual budding, to organisms such as fungi, which alternate between asexual and sexual, and are actually split between two very different stages of life, in which they go from haploid (one set of chromosomes) to diploid (2 sets, as is usual for sexually reproducing organisms).

      Please, don’t let yourself be fooled into thinking that your reasons for restricting someone else civil rights based solely on their sexual orientation are justified by anything more than your own homophobia and discomfort.

    • Just so I have this straight, you want “conservative government” but only if it fits your specific set of ideals? What happens when you’re no longer the majoirty? Should that new majority impose their ideals onto you through government force by the newly formed majority?

      Be careful what you wish for, it might just come true.

    • How does natural family have anything to do with small government? The family and the government are completely unrelated entities. Having more laws and regulations means bigger government. Also Libertarians aren’t necessarily pro-abortion. I’m very libertarian but I’m pro-life, and I know many libertarians who are. With libertariansim Sharia Law would have no affect in this country accept to those who choose to follow it. Libertarians wouldn’t allow Sharia Law to influence the government.
      What I don’t understand about conservatives is they always like to say “Democrats think they can tell me what to eat.. I have the right to choose whether or not I want to eat unhealthy food.” whenever they make regulations about fast food and such. How does the same not apply to gay marriage? Someone eating unhealthy food doesn’t affect me and there shouldn’t be laws forbidding it. Someone being gay doesn’t affect me or you either and there shouldn’t be laws forbidding it.

      • You are easily pro- abortion if you allowed someone 2 kill a baby before it is born. There are reasons why we have murder laws, death laws and etc that are based upon “moral values”. Abortion is the stupidest thing you libertarian support. Are you better than you republicans? Yes! but your party is still not what I’m looking for.

        • 98% of abortions happen when that “baby” is a clump of undifferentiated cells or a faceless, consciousless, genderless, limbless, mass that is unrecognizeable as a human being. Just because something lives and has human DNA does not make it a human being. Sperm lives and has DNA, and yet I don’t see you on the warpath to ensure that every single one results in a living child. The human embryo, as a “potential human being” has value. But that value is not equal to or more than the value of the living breathing human being whom you would force into slavery for nine months to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term against her will. You are not pro-life. You are anti-choice pro-women’s slavery. And that is disgusting.

          • These superstitious clowns don’t know the difference between clumps of stuff and babies. It’s time to stop trying to reason with them and start fighting back!

          • Completely incorrect JC, I teach embryology at the college level. Before fertilization the egg and sperm only have half of the normal 46 chromosomes. After fertilization, the egg has a unique set of DNA. At 8 weeks, all basic systems are formed and the fetus looks like a small infant. It moves and reacts to stimuli. From 8 weeks on, body systems develop further and increase in size until birth and after. Please stop with the “it’s not human life” argument. You might come across a little smarter. Instead you maybe want to focus on under what circumstances would terminating a human life would be ethical and reasonable. Also search google for “fetus, 8 weeks”

            • Count chromosomes all day and all night and still the only thing you have to support your superstition is silly superstition. You see, the nut in your fruit salad isn’t a tree and that zygote thing is no baby. Any rational person can see that with simple observation.

              • Peter J. Stanton, DC, MS, DABCO

                Apparently you are too ignorant to understand the 8th grade science I just outlined for you regarding embryology. I have the backing of every current embryology text in print. The zygote is a living, growing human life. To think that it becomes human when it “looks more human” or exits the cervix is the thinking of a moron however even using your moron level of logic do you contend that a 8 month fetus which looks just like a newborn is also ‘not human? Tell us Mr Rational. I can’t wait to read your response.

            • So, when does life begin professor? When there are functional organs? What about people who are brain dead? Their organs are functioning and they respond to stimuli. Is it murder to take someone off life support when they are brain dead? At best it becomes a philisophical debate as to when life begins. So dont spew your text book dribble and act like its conclusive. You are imposing your personal beliefs onto the science, not vice versa.

              • Dr Peter J. Stanton

                Dutch, Is that it? Let’s answer you questions one by one. 1) When does life begin? A “new human life” begins when the egg is fertilized, the egg nucleus undergoes it’s last meiosis and combines with the sperm DNA to form a new, unique cell. That cell is definitely human and it is not a DNA match for mom or dad or “part of the woman’s body”. If left alone, will develop into someone like….say you. 2) When are there functional organs? All organ systems are in place in a primitive form at 8 weeks. After that point they grow and become more mature. Organ function is not germane to when life begins. 3) What about the brain dead? If you have no upper brain function then you are dead. In humans the brain is the essence of who you are. 4) Murder if taken off life support if totally brain dead? No, See previous answer. 5) Personal beliefs? I know more than you about the human body and function. My opinion is informed. Yours is not. The data on DNA, fertilization and embryonic growth is irrefutable. The only instance where I have inserted my personal opinion is where I say that “brain dead= dead”.

    • Totally silly! Freedom is the root of libertarians. NOT childish ignorant superstition bring forced on people when they want no part of it!

  2. If radical Islam is not fought NOW, and beaten back NOW (good luck as O has fooled many into thinking he’s Christian) you are going to wish for the days of those bad ole’ conservative social values as heads are being lopped off for simply being gay. Amongst other “trangressions”. Why is nobody discussing the 800lb gorilla in the room? Everyone is distracted with free contraception, killing your baby right up to its birthday, paid for by Uncle Sibelius, etc. There is serious stuff going down right now. Apparently nobody has the balls to talk about.

    • Forcing a woman to carry an unwanted fetus to term is a less extreme, but comparable atrocity advocated for by the christian taliban.

  3. Richard P. Burke

    As a Libertarian, I think it is important not to take anything for granted here. Most young people are not conservative in any era, and ours is no exception. Upbringing is a factor, of course, but many conservatives are made when people begin to get married, have children, buy homes, and start businesses. We will need to work and work and work to ensure that the current generation of libertarians do not turn conservative when they start their lives and find themselves with something to lose.

    • “We will need to work and work and work to ensure that the current generation of libertarians do not turn conservative when they start their lives and find themselves with something to lose.”

      Just what is THAT supposed to mean?? That is seriously one of the scariest, most socialistic things I have heard out of a libertarian’s mouth. THIS is precisely why libertarians still don’t have their place in the party and precisely why, once they do, it will only be a generation or two before this “libertarian paradise” of which you seek to brainwash the masses becomes the final nail in the coffin of modern liberty.

  4. As a conservative I find this to be a bit depressing. But at the same time I see it as a necessity because the GOP needs to evolve in certain areas to remain competitive against the Democrats.

  5. a Young Libertarian Conservative

    Oh yes… we must fear radical Islam. The same as we feared Communism. Fear fear fear! That’s how they CONTROL YOU!

    Wake up people! Fear not, for the Lord is with you. Stop living in FEAR and start living in FAITH!

  6. Essentially, you’re saying that ideas die with a generation of people. Which contrary to your beliefs and pseudo hopes, ideas never die. Make your trends and claims but until you understand the political cycle, you’ll only succumb to the fact that every ‘ism’ eventually becomes it’s opposite. Conservatism won’t ‘die’ as much as Liberals would hope. The same goes for the opposite. Ideas and beliefs never die. Trending? Maybe. If you’re proclaiming to be a Libertarian, you would know this already.

  7. I was a conservative when I was 12, 24, and now 35 years old. Truth is truth whether you’re old or young, and as much as I like Ron Paul (I voted for him in the primary) my true ideal is more along the lines of Pat Buchanan. Even if “gays” become accepted by the majority, there will always be people who realize that it wasn’t always that way and that we were robbed of a more wholesome past by modernist social engineers.

  8. I think this is the most arrogant, idiotic article I have ever seen–study history lady–Rome openly practiced homosexuality–what happened to them ? You actually think
    approving homosexuality and being too cowardly to defend human rights and fight for freedom was how our country became the great nation it was a few years ago ? We older people fought for the rights you enjoy today–many, many wonderful people fought and died so you could bad mouth them, their beleifs and their accomplishments and start hoping for the death of their surviving families. I hope and pray that you and all the blind, arrogant, cowardly, lazy people who think like you change the way you think before you find yourself living in the kind of nation you think you want–because if you get what you think you want, you will be begging God in Heaven to send back some of the dead people that you wished to die.

    • What happened to Rome? Well, they ruled the world for about a thousand years. In fact, no empire in human history rivals the scope and duration of Roman power.

      What was your point again? All I got was a bad analogy, and then your promise to pray for us buried in between a colorful mix of personal insults.

  9. the reason why our movement grows is because Dr. Paul never told us to just follow his lead or fight for him or a name but to become strong. To fight for liberty and the freedom for people to be as they wish as long as they dont hurt others. To make society of independent individuals. This is why we stand with them because we live by principle and not a party name or candidate. we fight for our beliefs together and all feel ownership over this ideology thus work hard for it. This movement will only grow further for that reason we do not depend on Paul for our power but grew stronger for the risk he has taken for us and will always appreciate his battles he encountered. Thats the type of man i will go to war with any day a man of honesty, a man that will live by his principles no matter what, a man that will fight even when the numbers are against them. THIS DEFINES OUR MOVEMENT. Together we are strong

  10. i look forward to the day when people are able to distinguish between social and fiscal conservative ( and inversely liberalism as well).
    i also look forward to the day when the ideas of social liberalism can finally work together with fiscal conservatism.

    for those of you who read alex jones and hannity talking points… im saying i look forward to when the libertarians take over your precious and outdated GOP and when your perversion of the once decent tea party ideas is put to an end.

    Im all for allowing everyone to have their beliefs and their choices, and frankly… you dont HAVE to have abortions, you dont HAVE to do drugs, you dont HAVE to go get hitched to gay people, and you certainly dont HAVE to like it when someone else does.
    but goddamnit, if god gave us freewill, then he gave us the freewill to make our own choices and not have you make the holier than thou choices for us. and until people realize that such outdated socially conservative ideas are hampering any modicum of fiscal conservatism, then we as a nation are screwed.

    wake up ppl the 50′s are over, your party is evolving and the LP is coming to take it over. Deal With or end up like the dinosaurs.

  11. Benjamin Roussey

    Most people are not gay but almost every movie has a gay person. Ridiculous.

    Millennials have grown up a time where it’s no longer taboo to be openly gay. Our favorite films and television shows have gay characters.

  12. Let’s not attack the messenger–Michelle Fields–for simply reporting the facts. It is true that social conservatism is dying among the under-40s. I sometimes think I must be the last social conservative in my age group (early 40s). It’s one big reason it is so hard to find a date even! Most females say I am “too nice”! It’s “anything goes” among my middle class set–even for most church-goers!
    PS. Michelle, are you busy this weekend? I just think your’e the cat’s pyjamas!

  13. I’d have to disagree with the article, you can be a under 40 and a social conservative, but just because I’m one, doesn’t mean I would vote for Santorum or Romney over Paul. The GOP missed it’s chance to take back the white house when they ignored us. The young people are for the most part not libertarian, we are conservatives that are tired of our party ignoring/changing the constitution (and other rules) and destroying our currency along with it. We are not the greatest country in the world anymore, get over yourselves old people, just because your parents and grandparents lived in this country when it was great doesn’t mean you are doing the same. We need a new start, I vote to go back to our roots.
    (be conservative)

  14. This is the result of a generation growing up with George W Bush as your president. They rage against what he stood for.

  15. bkennedy86 Kennedy

    This article fails at the outset because it’s essential argument is gay marriage = social conservatism. The truth is, social conservatism is alive and well in the pro-life movement, which is is easily identified as a youth-led movement. The crossover in pro-life and libertarian movements is significant, as many support Ron Paul on the basis that he is pro-life. Social conservatism isn’t going anywhere.

    And most of the pro-life activists, even the young ones? They understand the importance of marriage, and the key difference between them and the older generation is the difference between antipathy and apathy. The older generation doesn’t like homosexuals and homosexuality, the younger generation is indifferent to homosexuals and homosexuality. But the two groups are united on the basic premise that marriage is between one man and one woman by definition. As young people grow up and actually get married and have children, they have a much stronger basis for supporting it.

    While I don’t see it made often, there’s even a libertarian argument for strengthening marriage. If marriage is in part a civil contract it should follow the rules of all other contracts and not be able to be nullified unilaterally by one party. There’s your libertarian argument against no-fault divorce, which would go a long way in regaining ground for traditional marriage.

    And sorry libertarians, social conservatism and fiscal conservatism go together naturally, for one simple reason: Social liberalism is expensive. Social liberals always ask for taxpayer money to endorse and fund the programs that bolster their social views (like taxpayer funding for Planned Parenthood). Social conservatives mostly think the outreach of their social values should be done through private organizations like their church.

  16. There are so many factual errors in this post that it’s hard to know where to start, even though so many factual errors in one post are not unusual for Michelle Fields.

    “What also attracts young republicans to libertarianism is their support of a non-interventionist foreign policy.”

    Of course, by that, Ms Fields means 1930s-style isolationism, because that’s what “noninterventionism” really is. In fact, they support isolationism’s extreme version propagated by Ron Paul.

    “Millennials have spent almost half of their lives living with their country at war”

    Really? Half? And it would be useful, Michelle, to add WHAT war was that: the Afghan war, i.e. the response to the 9/11 Islamic aggression against the US, and the struggle to prevent the Taleban from reconquering Afghanistan and making it a safehaven for terrorist groups ever again. It’s a just war. If millenials don’t recognize it, that’s their problem. The Iraq war was also a just war, because Saddam was perpetrating genocide on a massive scale while continuing to develop nuclear weapons (the inspectors who entered Iraq after the invasion confirmed this and say that had Saddam been left to his own devices, he would’ve obtained a nuclear bomb by the end of the 2000s). Moreover, both of these wars were authorized by Congress by wide bipartisan margins.

    “and, unfortunately for the GOP, they don’t seem to be as supportive of a strong interventionist foreign policy as older conservatives.”

    But the GOP and “older conservatives” do not necessarily support, and the Bush Administration did not implement, “a strong interventionist foreign policy”, although the Bush Admin did involve the US in Afghanistan and Iraq (when there was no other choice). What Ms Fields may mean by a “strong interventionist foreign policy” may, in fact, be libertarian-speak for a strong defense policy, which, of course, libertarians oppose just as fanatically as liberals do.

    “Just look at who the American youth lent their support to in 2008—Obama. A non-interventionist foreign policy was the single issue most identified with Obama back in 2008, when he got 66% of the 18-29 vote.”

    No, it wasn’t. It was the economy. To quote James Carville: “It’s the economy, ______!”

    “The young libertarians in the Republican Party make up some of the most active grassroots activists who worked throughout this election year increasing support for libertarianism on the state level by racking up delegates and taking over state committees and conventions.”

    Exactly. They racked up support for THEIR wacky ideology and THEIR crazy candidate, NOT for the GOP or conservatism. Therefore, it makes ridiculous the following whining that:

    “Instead of figuring out a way to take advantage of this extraordinary young energy by making some concessions, the RNC has decided to do everything in it’s power to limit their influence.”

    Actually, the RNC HAS made a lot of concessions to them. It has produced and aired a 5-minute video tribute to Ron Paul (even though he doesn’t deserve it), allowed his son Rand Paul to speak on the stage and blather nonsense about “sacred cows”, and included some of Ron Paul’s policies, such as auditing the Fed, be included in the Republican Platform. But clearly it’s not enough for Ms Fields and other libertarians. Libertarians probably won’t be satisfied until every last one of Ron Paul’s policies is included and until he is nominated for President instead of Romney.

    Ms Fields may be right that libertarians may one day take over the GOP, but if that happens, it won’t be just the death of social conservatism, it will be the end of conservatism, period. And of the GOP. A libertarian-dominated Republican Party will be too small a tent for more than a few million people and will therefore be permanently unable to win any elections – federal, state, or local, Congressional, presidential, legislative, gubernatorial, council, or mayoral.

    Actual voting has shown that 1) libertarians who are registered Republicans or vote in GOP primaries are only a small portion of the GOP electorate 2) they’re an even smaller part of the electorate as large. Thus, a libertarian-dominated GOP will be a permanent minority.

    This means the Democrats will become a permanent majority – and unopposed, they will turn the US into the United Socialist States of America in no more than 8 years. Then, America’s decline will become complete and irreversible.

  17. dirtyuglypolitics

    Some of the comments about this piece just lends credence to the truthfulness of it. Obviously some conservative dinosaurs are terrified of this youth movement. zbigniewmazurak said “Of course, by that, Ms Fields means 1930s-style isolationism, because that’s what “noninterventionism” really is. In fact, they support isolationism’s extreme version propagated by Ron Paul.” OH, you mean a foreign policy like Robert Taft advocated? Taft, Mr. Republican.

    This youthful movement understands social freedom as well as economic freedom. As one of these young advocates of liberty and freedom, I couldn’t care less about the republican party. I would rather see the Libertarian party grow.

  18. So, the future of the Republican Party will be that gays and peaceniks run it?? Well, that oughta give somebody something to look forward to.

  19. The GOP will have to die a slow death for a long time before it sees a resurgence. This old-timer was an early member of the LP back when the GOP was actually open to such radicalism. When it didn’t need us it moved on and left us to the Dems. Yeah, there’s a brand of libertarian (or people that take the name even if they’re not one) that believes only in the fiscal wing of the movement but they refuse to even consider the civil rights end of it. Until gays and blacks move in large numbers to the GOP nothing will change and as long as that party can stratify in the religious-right South it won’t even be considered. Move to the Dems – at least there’s a chance to make them see reason.

  20. If the GOP ever caves on such fundamental values as the sanctity of life and preserving traditional marriage from its foes, then it means that progressivism has won and successfully brainwashed the country. And that will be a dark day.

  21. dirtyuglypolitics

    Reblogged this on DIRTY UGLY POLITICS.

  22. I agree with who said don’t shoot the messenger. Michelle’s article isn’t idiotic. It proposes a very distinct possibility for the conservative movement and the GOP. And acknowledges a distinct reality in that a lot of young Republicans aren’t on board with the social values of many older conservatives. She has only used the gay marriage issue as an example to illustrate that point. And it is a very accurate assessment in my own opinion.

    Let’s dispense with thoughts of fiscal conservatism for a while and examine only social conservatism. Social conservative values, particularly concerning gay marriage, appear to be becoming a minority as more and more people reject them. You have the extreme left, liberals, and to a large extent libertarians who reject certain social conservative values.

    As to why this is happening that is uncertain. It’s not the kind of thing you can readily identify its cause. Is it because conservatives are losing the fight on social issues? Or because they’re failing to ensure their longevity by bringing younger people into the fold? Could it be because the far left is doing a fine job of dismantling conservative arguments on social issues?

    I would say it’s the result of several of those things and more. I would say its a sign of the times.

    The only thing I disagree with Michelle in her article is her statement that once the older generations die so to will social conservatism. First, it’s a rather depressing statement that lumps older people into some kind of obsolete group who are hindering progress. Second, I think it is unrealistic to think social conservatism will truly die. I’m not that old, merely 37, but I have no interest in dying off to advance libertarianism!

    It will not die. But it certainly will be greatly diminished. However, a much more likely outcome will be social conservatism will evolve. It will dispense with certain outdated views or modify them to remain relevant.

    For example, let us use gay marriage again to illustrate this:

    A true blue conservative loves liberty. I know I do. To me liberty is the most important thing we have as people. Now, liberty allows me to pursue and hopefully win the heart of any woman I can convince to date me. That same liberty allows me, if I’m fortunate, to marry that woman.

    Now, a gay man or a lesbian has that same liberty. Yet they cannot wish. Because that particular is being denied to them by a society clinging to a conservative value that insists marriage must be between a man and a woman.

    So, if I am a conservative who loves liberty (which I am) then am not a hypocrite if I would deny that same liberty to another person based on their sexual orientation? Would it not be more progressive of a conservative to acknowledge that homosexual’s liberty and support it than to oppose it and deny it to them? Would it not be an evolution in conservative values if they supported gay marriage on the basis of liberty and not seek to involve government in the issue. After all, we conservatives favor small government. I know I do. I don’t want the government getting into any my personal choices and business. It makes more sense, then, for social conservatives to evolve or modify their values, especially in this case.

    And so to evolve it concerning gay marriage social conservatives might be better off giving the gay people the same liberty they take for granted. It doesn’t mean they have to agree with homosexuality and related matters. Only acknowledge that homosexuals deserve the same liberty they have. And for those of a religious mindset remember this: It is God’s job to judge people. Not your job. If you feel a thing is a sin then remember God is supposed to be the one to judge and punish the sinners. Not you.

  23. I think the article and many of it’s comments is missing an important point…libertarians aren’t nessessarily socially liberal. They just don’t believe social issues are the governments business. In other words, it doesn’t belong in the political sphere. Many libertarians are socially conservative. Many are socially liberal. They believe in the same social policy though because they want to end government involvement. In reguards to gay marraige, liberals want to allow gays to aquire marriage liscenses. Conservatives don’t want gays to be allowed to get marriage liscenses. Libertarians want to abolish the marraige liscense altogether so that government can’t decide.

  24. Another group of stupid brainwashed products of the screwed up US education system. Please die

  25. What is wrong with the Republican Party returning to its traditional roots of constitutional rights, non-interventionism and liberty? That’s is what will happen once the new generation of Republicans take over, we have already started!

  26. You have to also realize that the values of liberalism which is traditional conservatism was her before the Neo-conservatives took over and destroyed the Republican Party. Traditional conservatism is taking back what is rightfully theirs. Visit http://www.politicalrealist.webs.com for the real conservative view.

  27. pathetic, your living in their world & you don’t even know it, they used to have a name for people like you “new leftist”

  1. Pingback: Waiting For The "Conservatives" To Die - INGunOwners

  2. Pingback: The Death Of Social Conservatism « GOP Quotes

  3. Pingback: | Tribble News

  4. Pingback: Classical Values » Losing The Culture War

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 140 other followers

%d bloggers like this: