Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Conservatives vs Libertarians

Expand Messages
  • philorenstein
    Rather Consertvatives AND Libertarians. I heard through the grapevine that there was a thread on Pro-life issues going around some RLCNYCers and I want to give
    Message 1 of 17 , Dec 14, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      Rather Consertvatives AND Libertarians. I heard through the grapevine
      that there was a thread on Pro-life issues going around some
      RLCNYCers and I want to give my 2 cents since I was out of the loop.

      I feel strongly that we need the unity of Conservatives, Republicans
      and libertarians in RLC and we have to take on these tough issues and
      hash them out in order to find common ground. Some religious
      conservatives that I know are the strongest on free market economic
      principles and as the addage goes, without conservatives we're
      souless and without libertarians we're dreamers.

      We better wake up and smell the coffee since pretty soon we'll all
      have to deal with Hillary who is honing in on a centrist position
      regarding Life and is wooing religious conservatives big time.

      As Raquel, staunchly Pro-Life and I, staunchly Pro-choice have
      debated these Life issues and found common ground in areas of
      abstention education, ban on partial-birth abortions, parental
      notification, etc. And on Gay issue, support for Log Cabin
      Republicans, Civil Union bills etc. We need to entertain these issues
      to be able to effectively unite and fight for our core economic
      values as a team.

      With Mitchell's prominent samaurai sword collection, maybe we ought
      to rethink our next meeting place!!
    • Carl Svensson
      ... . I heard through the grapevine that there was a thread on Pro-life issues going around some RLCNYCers and I want to give my 2 cents since I was out of the
      Message 2 of 17 , Dec 15, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In rlcnyc@yahoogroups.com, "philorenstein" <maduroman@...> wrote:
        >
        . I heard through the grapevine that there was a thread on Pro-life
        issues going around some RLCNYCers and I want to give my 2 cents since
        I was out of the loop.
        >
        I guess that I am out of the loop too, if there is a thread on the
        "Pro-Life/Pro-Choice" issue, but in my opinion, this is a non-issue
        since as an organization, the RLC recognizes that people have
        different ideas on this subject. The RLC does not take into
        consideration how a candidate or perspective candidate stands on
        this issue for its endorsements AND our position has always been that
        individuals are, of course, not obligated to follow the majority in
        making their individual decisions.

        "The Pro-Life/Pro-Choice debate is not a debate between conservatives
        and libertarians. Besides the RLC 'hands off' policy on this subject,
        many, perhaps even a majority of, libertarians are "pro-life".

        As individuals and as candidates, we must all make individual
        decisions as to how we promote our ideas and ideals. Some candidates
        may want to stress their position on this subject for reasons of
        conscience or political advantage...others will not. This too is an
        individual decision.

        Any rationale individual realizes that to "win" election one must
        gather enough people together to garmer sufficient support to win . I
        would hope that those candidates that we endorse will work towards
        that objective.
      • Phil Orenstein
        I understand the hands off policy, but since I have many friends who are religious conservatives, who are very strong fiscal conservatives, I think to woo them
        Message 3 of 17 , Dec 16, 2006
        • 0 Attachment
          I understand the hands off policy, but since I have many friends who are religious conservatives, who are very strong fiscal conservatives, I think to woo them under the RLC umbrella, we need to offer at least a nominal hearing to some of their deeply held convictions and not just brush them off.
           
          "Those who are too smart to engage in politics are punished by being governed by those who are dumber"  -Plato
          ----- Original Message -----
          Sent: Friday, December 15, 2006 10:47 AM
          Subject: [rlcnyc] Re: Conservatives vs Libertarians

          --- In rlcnyc@yahoogroups. com, "philorenstein" <maduroman@. ..> wrote:
          >
          . I heard through the grapevine that there was a thread on Pro-life
          issues going around some RLCNYCers and I want to give my 2 cents since
          I was out of the loop.
          >
          I guess that I am out of the loop too, if there is a thread on the
          "Pro-Life/Pro- Choice" issue, but in my opinion, this is a non-issue
          since as an organization, the RLC recognizes that people have
          different ideas on this subject. The RLC does not take into
          consideration how a candidate or perspective candidate stands on
          this issue for its endorsements AND our position has always been that
          individuals are, of course, not obligated to follow the majority in
          making their individual decisions.

          "The Pro-Life/Pro- Choice debate is not a debate between conservatives
          and libertarians. Besides the RLC 'hands off' policy on this subject,
          many, perhaps even a majority of, libertarians are "pro-life".

          As individuals and as candidates, we must all make individual
          decisions as to how we promote our ideas and ideals. Some candidates
          may want to stress their position on this subject for reasons of
          conscience or political advantage... others will not. This too is an
          individual decision.

          Any rationale individual realizes that to "win" election one must
          gather enough people together to garmer sufficient support to win . I
          would hope that those candidates that we endorse will work towards
          that objective.

        • Nasir Muhammad
          I am a Pro Life, Strong Fiscal Conservative. Nasir Phil Orenstein wrote: I understand the hands off policy, but since I have many friends
          Message 4 of 17 , Dec 18, 2006
          • 0 Attachment
            I am a Pro Life, Strong Fiscal Conservative.
             
            Nasir

            Phil Orenstein <maduroman@...> wrote:
            I understand the hands off policy, but since I have many friends who are religious conservatives, who are very strong fiscal conservatives, I think to woo them under the RLC umbrella, we need to offer at least a nominal hearing to some of their deeply held convictions and not just brush them off.
             
            "Those who are too smart to engage in politics are punished by being governed by those who are dumber"  -Plato
            ----- Original Message -----
            Sent: Friday, December 15, 2006 10:47 AM
            Subject: [rlcnyc] Re: Conservatives vs Libertarians

            --- In rlcnyc@yahoogroups. com, "philorenstein" <maduroman@. ..> wrote:
            >
            . I heard through the grapevine that there was a thread on Pro-life
            issues going around some RLCNYCers and I want to give my 2 cents since
            I was out of the loop.
            >
            I guess that I am out of the loop too, if there is a thread on the
            "Pro-Life/Pro- Choice" issue, but in my opinion, this is a non-issue
            since as an organization, the RLC recognizes that people have
            different ideas on this subject. The RLC does not take into
            consideration how a candidate or perspective candidate stands on
            this issue for its endorsements AND our position has always been that
            individuals are, of course, not obligated to follow the majority in
            making their individual decisions.

            "The Pro-Life/Pro- Choice debate is not a debate between conservatives
            and libertarians. Besides the RLC 'hands off' policy on this subject,
            many, perhaps even a majority of, libertarians are "pro-life".

            As individuals and as candidates, we must all make individual
            decisions as to how we promote our ideas and ideals. Some candidates
            may want to stress their position on this subject for reasons of
            conscience or political advantage... others will not. This too is an
            individual decision.

            Any rationale individual realizes that to "win" election one must
            gather enough people together to garmer sufficient support to win . I
            would hope that those candidates that we endorse will work towards
            that objective.




            Nasir Muhammad
            1444 E. Gun Hill RD #17
            Bronx NY 10469
            T.917-667-4282 F.1-321-260-6121
            Nasir Muhammad Consulting.com
          • Mitchell Langbert
            I really don t see any reason why the NY RLC should take a position on social conservatism. I think that a narrow focus will increase the leverage we have
            Message 5 of 17 , Dec 18, 2006
            • 0 Attachment
              I really don't see any reason why the NY RLC should take a position on social conservatism.  I think that a narrow focus will increase the leverage we have with the drastic fiscal and budgetary problems facing this moribund state.  If this is the "Empire State" then George Pataki should change his name to Romulus Augustulus, who was the last Roman emperor in 476 AD.
               
              ----- Original Message -----
              Sent: Monday, December 18, 2006 10:32 AM
              Subject: Re: [rlcnyc] Re: Conservatives vs Libertarians

              I am a Pro Life, Strong Fiscal Conservative.
               
              Nasir

              Phil Orenstein <maduroman@att. net> wrote:
              I understand the hands off policy, but since I have many friends who are religious conservatives, who are very strong fiscal conservatives, I think to woo them under the RLC umbrella, we need to offer at least a nominal hearing to some of their deeply held convictions and not just brush them off.
               
              "Those who are too smart to engage in politics are punished by being governed by those who are dumber"  -Plato
              ----- Original Message -----
              Sent: Friday, December 15, 2006 10:47 AM
              Subject: [rlcnyc] Re: Conservatives vs Libertarians

              --- In rlcnyc@yahoogroups. com, "philorenstein" <maduroman@. ..> wrote:
              >
              . I heard through the grapevin that there was a thread on Pro-life
              issues going around some RLCNYCers and I want to give my 2 cents since
              I was out of the loop.
              >
              I guess that I am out of the loop too, if there is a thread on the
              "Pro-Life/Pro- Choice" issue, but in my opinion, this is a non-issue
              since as an organization, the RLC recognizes that people have
              different ideas on this subject. The RLC does not take into
              consideration how a candidate or perspective candidate stands on
              this issue for its endorsements AND our position has always been that
              individuals are, of course, not obligated to follow the majority in
              making their individual decisions.

              "The Pro-Life/Pro- Choice debate is not a debate between conservatives
              and libertarians. Besides the RLC 'hands off' policy on this subject,
              many, perhaps even a majority of, libertarians are "pro-life".

              As individuals and as candidates, we must all make individual
              decisions as to how we promote our ideas and ideals. Some candidates
              may want to stress their position on this subject for reasons of
              conscience or political advantage... others will not. This too is an
              individual decision.

              Any rationale individual realizes that to "win" election one must
              gather enough people together to garmer sufficient support to win . I
              would hope that those candidates that we endorse will work towards
              that objective.




              Nasir Muhammad
              1444 E. Gun Hill RD #17
              Bronx NY 10469
              T.917-667-4282 F.1-321-260- 6121
              Nasir Muhammad Consulting.com

            • Barry Campbell
              ... It s that pesky word liberty in our name, Mitchell. It s very tempting not to take a position on potentially controversial issues, but if we refrain from
              Message 6 of 17 , Dec 18, 2006
              • 0 Attachment
                On 12/18/06, Mitchell Langbert <mlangbert@...> wrote:

                > I really don't see any reason why the NY RLC should take a position on social
                > conservatism.

                It's that pesky word "liberty" in our name, Mitchell.

                It's very tempting not to take a position on potentially controversial
                issues, but if we refrain from taking a stand on social issues, then
                we're just another group espousing economic conservatism, which is
                only part (although certainly a very big part) of the "liberty" we're
                allegedly oriented towards.

                Right now there are *very* effective groups within the Republican
                Party and the conservative movement in general who are addressing
                social conservatism OR economic conservatism, but no one that I know
                of other than the RLC who is attempting to engage on *both* fronts.

                Don't get me wrong; I think that there are *many* areas in which
                social conservatives and libertarians can make common cause, and I
                fully support that.

                But if social issues aren't going to be important to the NYRLC, hell,
                I'm *already* a member of a far more effective group than we're likely
                to become any time soon that focuses with laser-like intensity on
                economic conservatism: the Club for Growth.

                If we're just going to talk about economic issues, let's address how
                we're going to compete with the Club for Growth (the answer is, we
                aren't, and let's go home.)

                - bc

                --
                Barry Campbell -- <barry.campbell@...> -- <barry@...>
                Voice: +1.212.807.1836 | Mobile: +1. 646.498.3518 | Fax: +1.866.522.7270
                AOL IM: bcampbellnyc
                Blog: http://campbell-online.com
              • Mitchell Langbert
                Hey Barry. Since there are no other groups (successfully) reforming New York State s economy, I don t quite understand you. I would think that our purpose
                Message 7 of 17 , Dec 18, 2006
                • 0 Attachment
                  Hey Barry. Since there are no other groups (successfully) reforming New York State's economy, I don't quite understand you.  I would think that our purpose ought to be to get results in a few important areas rather than to be "right" in all areas and get two percent of the vote.  The Libertarian Party already does that, and I would think that we shouldn't want to be just another Libertarian Party.  It's that pesky word reality, Barry that has the LP types flummoxed.  
                   
                  ----- Original Message -----
                  Sent: Monday, December 18, 2006 2:57 PM
                  Subject: Re: [rlcnyc] Re: Conservatives vs Libertarians

                  On 12/18/06, Mitchell Langbert <mlangbert@nyc. rr.com> wrote:

                  > I really don't see any reason why the NY RLC should take a position on social
                  > conservatism.

                  It's that pesky word "liberty" in our name, Mitchell.

                  It's very tempting not to take a position on potentially controversial
                  issues, but if we refrain from taking a stand on social issues, then
                  we're just another group espousing economic conservatism, which is
                  only part (although certainly a very big part) of the "liberty" we're
                  allegedly oriented towards.

                  Right now there are *very* effective groups within the Republican
                  Party and the conservative movement in general who are addressing
                  social conservatism OR economic conservatism, but no one that I know
                  of other than the RLC who is attempting to engage on *both* fronts.

                  Don't get me wrong; I think that there are *many* areas in which
                  social conservatives and libertarians can make common cause, and I
                  fully support that.

                  But if social issues aren't going to be important to the NYRLC, hell,
                  I'm *already* a member of a far more effective group than we're likely
                  to become any time soon that focuses with laser-like intensity on
                  economic conservatism: the Club for Growth.

                  If we're just going to talk about economic issues, let's address how
                  we're going to compete with the Club for Growth (the answer is, we
                  aren't, and let's go home.)

                  - bc

                  --
                  Barry Campbell -- <barry.campbell@ gmail.com> -- <barry@campbell- online.com>
                  Voice: +1.212.807.1836 | Mobile: +1. 646.498.3518 | Fax: +1.866.522.7270
                  AOL IM: bcampbellnyc
                  Blog: http://campbell- online.com

                • Mitchell
                  Club for Growth s Policy Goals: Making the Bush tax cuts permanent Death tax repeal Cutting and limiting government spending Social Security reform with
                  Message 8 of 17 , Dec 18, 2006
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Club for Growth's Policy Goals:

                    Making the Bush tax cuts permanent
                    Death tax repeal
                    Cutting and limiting government spending
                    Social Security reform with personal retirement accounts
                    Expanding free trade
                    Legal reform to end abusive lawsuits
                    Replacing the current tax code
                    School choice
                    Regulatory reform and deregulation

                    Potential RLC-NY Policy Goals

                    Reverse New York State's 5 decade long economic decline
                    Reduce property taxes
                    Reduce state income taxes
                    Improvement of Education/School Choice
                    Bring Medicaid in line with other states
                    Reduce Corruption in Albany (e.g., Senator D'Amato's influence
                    peddling)
                    Reduce or counter state union power (health workers, teachers)
                    Eliminate New York City housing code
                    End eminent domain (NYS is nation's leader in private-use e.d.)

                    If Barry or anyone who thinks that even 1/3 of what I just listed off
                    the top of my head as RLC-NY potential policy goals is achievable in
                    the next 3 years, please let me know. Then, after you have
                    enlightened us about how to achieve these goals, we can then add 25
                    additional controversial social goals. Meanwhile, Barry, please tell
                    us how you are saying you propose to solve the New York State
                    problems and why you feel there is so much overlap between Club for
                    Growth and New York's problems. I don't see alot.
                  • Barry Campbell
                    ... Choosing where to place our focus is one thing, but not taking a position on social issues is quite another. In politics, pragmatism tends to trump
                    Message 9 of 17 , Dec 18, 2006
                    • 0 Attachment
                      On 12/18/06, Mitchell Langbert <mlangbert@...> wrote:

                      > Hey Barry. Since there are no other groups (successfully) reforming New York State's
                      > economy, I don't quite understand you. I would think that our purpose ought to be to get
                      > results in a few important areas rather than to be "right" in all areas and get two percent
                      > of the vote. The Libertarian Party already does that, and I would think that we
                      > shouldn't want to be just another Libertarian Party. It's that pesky word reality, Barry
                      > that has the LP types flummoxed.

                      Choosing where to place our focus is one thing, but not taking a
                      position on social issues is quite another. In politics, pragmatism
                      tends to trump ideological purity in the general election, but
                      principled stands on the issues are what draw your volunteers, your
                      organizers and your early money; we'd be advised to choose well and
                      courageously on all fronts.

                      The RLC as a national organization doesn't seem to be afraid of taking
                      positions on social issues. RLC explicitly refuses to take a position
                      on abortion, but implicitly endorses gay rights by noting positive
                      associations with the Log Cabin Republicans, and further sets out the
                      following credo (see http://rlc.org/?p=FAQ)

                      The RLC Supports:

                      1. Lower and fewer taxes
                      2. The right to privacy
                      3. The right to keep and bear arms
                      4. Balanced budgets through spending cuts
                      5. Educational choice
                      6. Freedom of speech
                      7. Protection of property rights
                      8. Market-based health care
                      9. Alternatives to the drug war
                      10. All-volunteer armed forces
                      11. Term Limits
                      12. Sound monetary policies
                      13. Deregulation
                      14. Phase-out of foreign aid
                      15. Ending federal welfare
                      16. Private options to Social Security
                      17. Free trade Privatization of government functions

                      Plenty of meaty economic *and* social issues there to sink one's teeth
                      into, Mitchell, and plenty of positions that current Republican
                      officials at the state and Federal level are in egregious conflict
                      with, and thus lots of room for reform and improvement.

                      The best issues for us to *emphasize* are likely to be things like
                      school choice (which touches both social and economic policy) and
                      lowering the tax burden on individuals and families (economics), and
                      incidentally those are areas where we're likely to have broad overlap
                      with the beliefs of many social conservatives... but it's necessary to
                      stand for something, and if we're going to call ourselves a branch of
                      the RLC, making the focus purely economic will not make it.

                      - bc

                      --
                      Barry Campbell -- <barry.campbell@...> -- <barry@...>
                      Voice: +1.212.807.1836 | Mobile: +1. 646.498.3518 | Fax: +1.866.522.7270
                      AOL IM: bcampbellnyc
                      Blog: http://campbell-online.com
                    • Mitchell Langbert
                      In politics, you cannot separate questions like taking a stand and placing focus. If you want to win you have to build a coalition. What coalition are you
                      Message 10 of 17 , Dec 18, 2006
                      • 0 Attachment
                        In politics, you cannot separate questions like taking a stand and placing focus.  If you want to win you have to build a coalition.  What coalition are you aiming to build?  What is your specific business plan, demographically?  Have libertarian organizations that have focused on social issues been successful?  What is their track record?  Where have they won?  
                         
                        Also, why do you think that social issue questions are important to New York?  New York is pretty much last in the nation on taxation and the economy , but among the first on gay rights, etc.  Given that the Democrats already have the loyalty of the diversity movement, which tends to be statist, please go over a strategy.  Who will candidates like that attract?  What track record do libertarian groups have in winning large segments of important diverse groups that would enable economic conservatives to see their ideas implemented?  Will Al Sharpton leave the Democrats because he suddenly read Adam Smith?  Are you proposing a strategy or a fantasy?
                         
                        "but principled stands on the issues are what draw your volunteers, your
                        organizers and your early money; we'd be advised to choose well and
                        courageously on all fronts."
                         
                        ----- Original Message -----
                        Sent: Monday, December 18, 2006 4:01 PM
                        Subject: Re: [rlcnyc] Re: Conservatives vs Libertarians

                        On 12/18/06, Mitchell Langbert <mlangbert@nyc. rr.com> wrote:

                        > Hey Barry. Since there are no other groups (successfully) reforming New York State's
                        > economy, I don't quite understand you. I would think that our purpose ought to be to get
                        > results in a few important areas rather than to be "right" in all areas and get two percent
                        > of the vote. The Libertarian Party already does that, and I would think that we
                        > shouldn't want to be just another Libertarian Party. It's that pesky word reality, Barry
                        > that has the LP types flummoxed.

                        Choosing where to place our focus is one thing, but not taking a
                        position on social issues is quite another. In politics, pragmatism
                        tends to trump ideological purity in the general election, but
                        principled stands on the issues are what draw your volunteers, your
                        organizers and your early money; we'd be advised to choose well and
                        courageously on all fronts.

                        The RLC as a national organization doesn't seem to be afraid of taking
                        positions on social issues. RLC explicitly refuses to take a position
                        on abortion, but implicitly endorses gay rights by noting positive
                        associations with the Log Cabin Republicans, and further sets out the
                        following credo (see http://rlc.org/ ?p=FAQ)

                        The RLC Supports:

                        1. Lower and fewer taxes
                        2. The right to privacy
                        3. The right to keep and bear arms
                        4. Balanced budgets through spending cuts
                        5. Educational choice
                        6. Freedom of speech
                        7. Protection of property rights
                        8. Market-based health care
                        9. Alternatives to the drug war
                        10. All-volunteer armed forces
                        11. Term Limits
                        12. Sound monetary policies
                        13. Deregulation
                        14. Phase-out of foreign aid
                        15. Ending federal welfare
                        16. Private options to Social Security
                        17. Free trade Privatization of government functions

                        Plenty of meaty economic *and* social issues there to sink one's teeth
                        into, Mitchell, and plenty of positions that current Republican
                        officials at the state and Federal level are in egregious conflict
                        with, and thus lots of room for reform and improvement.

                        The best issues for us to *emphasize* are likely to be things like
                        school choice (which touches both social and economic policy) and
                        lowering the tax burden on individuals and families (economics), and
                        incidentally those are areas where we're likely to have broad overlap
                        with the beliefs of many social conservatives. .. but it's necessary to
                        stand for something, and if we're going to call ourselves a branch of
                        the RLC, making the focus purely economic will not make it.

                        - bc

                        --
                        Barry Campbell -- <barry.campbell@ gmail.com> -- <barry@campbell- online.com>
                        Voice: +1.212.807.1836 | Mobile: +1. 646.498.3518 | Fax: +1.866.522.7270
                        AOL IM: bcampbellnyc
                        Blog: http://campbell- online.com

                      • Barry Campbell
                        Mitchell, I m a political pragmatist, at the end of the day... but if a pragmatist were *all* that I were, living in NYC, I d be a registered and active
                        Message 11 of 17 , Dec 18, 2006
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Mitchell, I'm a political pragmatist, at the end of the day... but if
                          a pragmatist were *all* that I were, living in NYC, I'd be a
                          registered and active Democrat.

                          I've actually made most of the points in this discussion that I wanted
                          to make, but here are a couple of clarifications or amplifications:

                          -- Most people who *have* libertarian leanings don't identify
                          themselves as "libertarian"; they describe themselves as "fiscally
                          conservative and socially liberal."

                          I'd like to make sure the RLC in NY represents both parts of that formulation.

                          -- The key constituency you'll attract with a liberty-oriented stance
                          on *both* social and economic issues is the one that matters most in
                          the long-term: youth. The Cato Institute's recent study of the
                          American electorate indicates that 13% of the American electorate has
                          libertarian leanings, but that the number is even higher among young
                          voters (18-29), up to 20%. (See
                          http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa580.pdf). Shall we just concede this
                          entire generation of voters to the Democratic Party without a fight?

                          -- The crisis we're currently facing as Republicans is that
                          liberty-oriented Republicans are deserting the party at the polls.
                          72% of self-identified libertarians (small L) voted for Bush in 2000;
                          that number shrank to 59% in 2004, and in the recent 2006 elections
                          what little data there currently is on how libertarians voted strongly
                          suggests that liberty-oriented Republicans either stayed home or voted
                          for Democrats, much as Cato's David Boaz predicted:

                          "Libertarians usually vote for Republicans, who promise to hold down
                          taxes, spending and regulation. But in the past six years of
                          Republican control in Washington, federal spending has skyrocketed.
                          Meanwhile, the Republican Party has become more dominated by the
                          religious right, and the Bush administration has mired the country in
                          a seemingly endless war in Iraq.

                          Libertarians see less and less reason to vote Republican. In 2004 many
                          of them switched. President Bush won 72 percent of the libertarian
                          vote in 2000 but only 59 percent in 2004. John Kerry almost doubled Al
                          Gore's share of the libertarian vote, from 20 to 38 percent. That was
                          a net swing away from Mr. Bush of almost 5 million libertarian votes.
                          If he had held those votes, he would have had an easy re-election.
                          Instead, he squeaked out another narrow win in the electoral college."
                          (Source: http://washingtontimes.com/commentary/20061105-095800-9617r.htm)

                          - bc
                        • Carl Svensson
                          ... are religious conservatives, who are very strong fiscal conservatives, I think to woo them under the RLC umbrella, we need to offer at least a nominal
                          Message 12 of 17 , Dec 18, 2006
                          • 0 Attachment
                            --- In rlcnyc@yahoogroups.com, "Phil Orenstein" <maduroman@...> wrote:
                            >
                            > I understand the hands off policy, but since I have many friends who
                            are religious conservatives, who are very strong fiscal conservatives,
                            I think to woo them under the RLC umbrella, we need to offer at least
                            a nominal hearing to some of their deeply held convictions and not
                            just brush them off.

                            I hope that I did not "brush off" any religious conservatives; that was
                            certainly not my intention. Any member of this group is free to have a
                            "hearing" of their deeply held convictions if that is what they want,
                            but in all honesty, I believe that most of us have a knowledge and
                            appreciation for the views of both "traditionalists" and "libertarians".
                            Am I missing something?

                            I also think that this subject is better titled "traditionalists" and
                            "libertarians" rather than "conservatives" vs. "libertarians"

                            Carl
                          • Carl Svensson
                            ... on social conservatism. Phil: Do you see any reason why we should? Carl
                            Message 13 of 17 , Dec 18, 2006
                            • 0 Attachment
                              --- In rlcnyc@yahoogroups.com, "Mitchell Langbert" <mlangbert@...> wrote:
                              >
                              > I really don't see any reason why the NY RLC should take a position
                              on social conservatism.

                              Phil:

                              Do you see any reason why we should?

                              Carl
                            • Phil Orenstein
                              The Conservative Party votes for governor was 168,654 while the Working Families Party votes for governor was 155,184. WFP is funded and staffed by the massive
                              Message 14 of 17 , Dec 18, 2006
                              • 0 Attachment
                                The Conservative Party votes for governor was 168,654 while the Working Families Party votes for governor was 155,184. WFP is funded and staffed by the massive $$ influx from George Soros, who is using all his capital to destroy ours. CP is grassroots and underfunded. They must be doing something right to energize their base and we can certainly benefit from that energy. My point is not to introduce social policy into the RLC platform but to give some social conservative issues a hearing though we may never agree. This way we can  find common ground on such broader issues as, say school choice as someone mentioned or education reform, Albany reform etc, where we can have a meeting of the minds.
                                 
                                "Those who are too smart to engage in politics are punished by being governed by those who are dumber"  -Plato
                                ----- Original Message -----
                                Sent: Monday, December 18, 2006 5:46 PM
                                Subject: Re: [rlcnyc] Re: Conservatives vs Libertarians

                                In politics, you cannot separate questions like taking a stand and placing focus.  If you want to win you have to build a coalition.  What coalition are you aiming to build?  What is your specific business plan, demographically?  Have libertarian organizations that have focused on social issues been successful?  What is their track record?  Where have they won?  
                                 
                                Also, why do you think that social issue questions are important to New York?  New York is pretty much last in the nation on taxation and the economy , but among the first on gay rights, etc.  Given that the Democrats already have the loyalty of the diversity movement, which tends to be statist, please go over a strategy.  Who will candidates like that attract?  What track record do libertarian groups have in winning large segments of important diverse groups that would enable economic conservatives to see their ideas implemented?  Will Al Sharpton leave the Democrats because he suddenly read Adam Smith?  Are you proposing a strategy or a fantasy?
                                 
                                "but principled stands on the issues are what draw your volunteers, your
                                organizers and your early money; we'd be advised to choose well and
                                courageously on all fronts."
                                 
                                ----- Original Message -----
                                Sent: Monday, December 18, 2006 4:01 PM
                                Subject: Re: [rlcnyc] Re: Conservatives vs Libertarians

                                On 12/18/06, Mitchell Langbert <mlangbert@nyc. rr.com> wrote:

                                > Hey Barry. Since there are no other groups (successfully) reforming New York State's
                                > economy, I don't quite understand you. I would think that our purpose ought to be to get
                                > results in a few important areas rather than to be "right" in all areas and get two percent
                                > of the vote. The Libertarian Party already does that, and I would think that we
                                > shouldn't want to be just another Libertarian Party. It's that pesky word reality, Barry
                                > that has the LP types flummoxed.

                                Choosing where to place our focus is one thing, but not taking a
                                position on social issues is quite another. In politics, pragmatism
                                tends to trump ideological purity in the general election, but
                                principled stands on the issues are what draw your volunteers, your
                                organizers and your early money; we'd be advised to choose well and
                                courageously on all fronts.

                                The RLC as a national organization doesn't seem to be afraid of taking
                                positions on social issues. RLC explicitly refuses to take a position
                                on abortion, but implicitly endorses gay rights by noting positive
                                associations with the Log Cabin Republicans, and further sets out the
                                following credo (see http://rlc.org/ ?p=FAQ)

                                The RLC Supports:

                                1. Lower and fewer taxes
                                2. The right to privacy
                                3. The right to keep and bear arms
                                4. Balanced budgets through spending cuts
                                5. Educational choice
                                6. Freedom of speech
                                7. Protection of property rights
                                8. Market-based health care
                                9. Alternatives to the drug war
                                10. All-volunteer armed forces
                                11. Term Limits
                                12. Sound monetary policies
                                13. Deregulation
                                14. Phase-out of foreign aid
                                15. Ending federal welfare
                                16. Private options to Social Security
                                17. Free trade Privatization of government functions

                                Plenty of meaty economic *and* social issues there to sink one's teeth
                                into, Mitchell, and plenty of positions that current Republican
                                officials at the state and Federal level are in egregious conflict
                                with, and thus lots of room for reform and improvement.

                                The best issues for us to *emphasize* are likely to be things like
                                school choice (which touches both social and economic policy) and
                                lowering the tax burden on individuals and families (economics), and
                                incidentally those are areas where we're likely to have broad overlap
                                with the beliefs of many social conservatives. .. but it's necessary to
                                stand for something, and if we're going to call ourselves a branch of
                                the RLC, making the focus purely economic will not make it.

                                - bc

                                --
                                Barry Campbell -- <barry.campbell@ gmail.com> -- <barry@campbell- online.com>
                                Voice: +1.212.807.1836 | Mobile: +1. 646.498.3518 | Fax: +1.866.522.7270
                                AOL IM: bcampbellnyc
                                Blog: http://campbell- online.com

                              • Phil Orenstein
                                No I don t Carl. See my last reply. Those who are too smart to engage in politics are punished by being governed by those who are dumber -Plato ... From:
                                Message 15 of 17 , Dec 18, 2006
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  No I don't Carl. See my last reply.
                                   
                                  "Those who are too smart to engage in politics are punished by being governed by those who are dumber"  -Plato
                                  ----- Original Message -----
                                  Sent: Monday, December 18, 2006 9:11 PM
                                  Subject: [rlcnyc] Re: Conservatives vs Libertarians

                                  --- In rlcnyc@yahoogroups. com, "Mitchell Langbert" <mlangbert@. ..> wrote:
                                  >
                                  > I really don't see any reason why the NY RLC should take a position
                                  on social conservatism.

                                  Phil:

                                  Do you see any reason why we should?

                                  Carl

                                • Mitchell Langbert
                                  Hey Barry-- The liberal/left Democrats and Republicans in New York are statist and have been since the New Deal was born here in the Al Smith administration in
                                  Message 16 of 17 , Dec 18, 2006
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    Hey Barry-- The liberal/left Democrats and Republicans in New York are statist and have been since the New Deal was born here in the Al Smith administration in the 1920s and earlier.  New York is the bastion of liberal statism.  It is the birthplace of Rockefeller Republicanism.  So the formula here to win must involve gut issues that are strong enough to overcome the prevailing (for the past 90 years) statist philosophy. Do you really believe that twenty percent of the youth vote in New York will be sufficient to overcome the Democrats' union/welfare voting machine? It's not enough to say "I've said all I have to say".   As a college professor, I even am skeptical of the 20 percent that you indicate.  I hear my Brooklyn students' views, and many have been molded by the New York City public schools.  You have a large population that believes that Wal Mart is evil and that 9/11 was caused by Israeli secret agents.  Charles Barron is not a fluke.   
                                     
                                    So I don't think the kind of tragic betrayal that has occurred in Washington (which I agree with you has been a disaster) is likely applicable here.  An economic libertarian with a mildly conservative social stance would be 1000 times preferable to anything the current Republicans would likely come up with.  Libertarians working a strict libertarian platform will do about as well as the LP has done over the past 30 odd years.  In other words, you have yet to come up with a realistic plan.
                                     
                                    "Libertarians usually vote for Republicans, who promise to hold down
                                    taxes, spending and regulation. But in the past six years of
                                    Republican control in Washington, federal spending has skyrocketed.
                                    Meanwhile, the Republican Party has become more dominated by the
                                    religious right, and the Bush administration has mired the country in
                                    a seemingly endless war in Iraq.

                                    Libertarians see less and less reason to vote Republican. In 2004 many
                                    of them switched. President Bush won 72 percent of the libertarian
                                    vote in 2000 but only 59 percent in 2004. John Kerry almost doubled Al

                                  • Carl Svensson
                                    ... On 12/18/06, Mitchell Langbert wrote: I really don t see any reason why the NY RLC should take a position on social conservatism ... On
                                    Message 17 of 17 , Dec 19, 2006
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      --- In rlcnyc@yahoogroups.com,
                                      >
                                      On 12/18/06, Mitchell Langbert <mlangbert@...> wrote: "I really don't
                                      see any reason why the NY RLC should take a position on social
                                      conservatism"
                                      >
                                      On 12/18/06, Barry Campbell wrote: "Its very tempting not to take a
                                      position on potentially controversial issues, but if we refrain from
                                      taking a stand on social issues, then we're just another group
                                      espousing economic conservatism"

                                      Tactically, I see validity in both camps; it is a bit of a dilemma.
                                      Historically, the RLC has tried to avoid being tied down to a platform
                                      for the very reason that we can see in the above dicotomy. In the case
                                      of "gay rights", for example, is it "civil unions" or "marriage".
                                      Either way, there is a tendency to divide our constituency. Actions
                                      speak louder than words, and one possiblity might be to have a high
                                      profile "Log Cabin Republican" on our board, rather than write
                                      something "down" which might create a "no-win situation". We will
                                      continue to debate this issue I am sure......

                                      Barry Campbell wrote" But if social issues aren't going to be
                                      important to the NYRLC, hell, I'm *already* a member of a far more
                                      effective group than we're likely to become any time soon that
                                      focuses with laser-like intensity on economic conservatism: the Club
                                      for Growth.
                                      >
                                      I think that we should note that the 'Club for Growth', and similar
                                      operations are NOT operating in New York. They are "gathering" large
                                      sums of money from within the state, but it is "invested" elsewhere.

                                      Carl
                                    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.