‘Three of a Kind’–Big Government Neoconservative Progressives: Newt Gingrich–Serial Hypocrite; Rick Santorum–Counterfeit Conservative; Mitt Romney–Flip Flopper–vs. Ron Paul–Libertarian Conservative–Videos

Posted on January 17, 2012. Filed under: American History, Blogroll, Business, Communications, Economics, Employment, Federal Government, Federal Government Budget, Fiscal Policy, government, government spending, history, Inflation, Investments, Language, Law, liberty, Life, Macroeconomics, Public Sector, Tax Policy, Taxes, Unemployment, Unions, Video, War, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , |

Ron Paul: Three of a Kind

AYN RAND’s message to AMERICA

Ayn Rand on Socialism and Dictatorship in America

George Carlin -“Who Really Controls America”

“If the practice persists of covering government deficits with the issue of notes, then the day will come without fail, sooner or later, when the monetary systems of those nations pursuing this course will break down completely. The purchasing power of the monetary unit will decline more and more, until finally it disappears completely.”

~Ludwig von Mises, On the Manipulation of Money and Credit, page 5.

There are four neoconservative progressives still in the race for the Republican Party Presidential nomination–Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum and Rick Perry.

Perry will be the next to drop out of the race, most likely in the next two weeks, if not sooner.

The only libertarian conservative in the race is Ron Paul.

Many progressives do not care who wins–Obama, Romney, Gingrich and Santorium– big government progressives are all acceptable to many progressive Democrats and Republicans.

The neoconservative progressives and the Republican Party establishment prefer Mitt Romney over the others.

The conservative base simply does not support Romney and many are waking up to the fact that Gingrich and Santorium are both big government neoconservative progressives as well.

Talk radio show hosts are divided as well.

However, most talk radio show hosts are united in their opposition to libertarian conservative Ron Paul.

It seems these so-called “conservatives” are Republicans first.

Actually these talk radio show hosts are neoconservative progressives forced out of the closet or bunker.

These hosts may talk “conservative” but support Republican Presidential candidates that are also talk “conservative” but walk big government neoconservative progressives.

The Bulwarks of the Conservative Movement

Making Sense of the Conservative Movement

What’s the Modern Definition of a Conservative?

Ronald Reagan Tapped Into Unspoken Conservatives

This includes Bennett, Beck, Limbaugh, Levin, Hewett and Medved just to name a few.

These talk radio show hosts differ only as to which big government Republican neoconservative progressives they support.

True conservatives must either support and vote for Paul or once again see another big government neoconservative progressive in the White House–Teddy Roosevelt, Herbert Hoover, Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, George H. W.Bush and George W. Bush were all big government progressives and not conservatives.

I have been in the conservative movement since Barry Goldwater.

I will no longer vote for any progressive of either party.

I will never vote for a neoconservative progressives, they are war mongers that get Americans and the innocent in other countries killed.

The neoconservatives have blood on their hands.

The time has come for conservatives to form a new political party consisting of four types of conservatives: economic/libertarian conservatives, traditional conservatives, religious/social conservatives and national defense/anti-communist conservatives.

Party Name: American Citizens Alliance Party

Tag-line: Faith, Family, Friends and Freedom First.

For all practical purposes the progressives in both parties have won.

The progressives control the leadership of both political parties.

In the next three months both parties will again propose  another unbalanced budget exceeding $3.5 trillion with a deficit greater than $1 trillion.

This is not fiscally responsible.

This is the victory of big government progressivism advocating warfare and welfare state intervention  over limited government conservatism advocating a peace and prosperity economy with a non-intervention state.

The battle is between the collectivists vs. the individualists.

It will take at least 100 years to undo what the progressives have done to this country.

I will support and vote for Ron Paul.

Let the neoconservatives and progressives and their friends in the media and talk radio fool the ignorant in their audiences.

The American people will and are waking up and will revolt.

Abandon both the Democratic and Republican Parties that have been well penetrated and captured by progressive statists–collectivists all.

Focus on building a new political party.

Support and vote for Ron Paul

“An essential point in the social philosophy of interventionism is the existence of an inexhaustible fund which can be squeezed forever.”

“The whole system of interventionism collapses when this fountain is drained off: The Santa Claus principle liquidates itself.”

~Ludwig von Mises, Human Action, pages 854 and 858

G. Edward Griffin – The Collectivist Conspiracy

Big Government Conservatism

Serial Hypocrisy – The Real Newt Gingrich

Newt Gingrich: Selling Access

SA@TAC – Newt Gingrich is Not a Conservative

Who is Newt’s favorite President?

SA@TheDC – Does Newt Gingrich Want the Constitution to ‘Die?’

Ron Paul Ad – Rick Santorum “A Record of Betrayal”

Rick Santorum’s Big Government Problem

Rick Santorum-Big Government, Big Spending Conservative

Big Government Liberal Rick Santorum Exposed

Jeb Bush Misses Bribe Goal, Santorum Turnout So Sad It Hurts

 Ron Paul Ad – BIG DOG

Rand Paul Exposes Rick Santorum as a Fake Conservative

Rush Limbaugh Admits Mitt Romney is a GOP Disaster if nominated

Still Voting For ‘Mitt Romney’?

Rush Limbaugh: Mitt Romney ‘Is Not A Conservative’

When Mitt Romney Came To Town — Full, complete version

George Carlin – Divide and Conquer

Ron Paul Ad – Believe

Ron Paul Ad – Consistent

Ron Paul Ad – Secure

Ron Paul Ad TRUST

Ron Paul Ad – Plan

Ron Paul – “The one who can beat Obama”

Armed Chinese Troops in Texas! 

Why Ron Paul is Obama’s Toughest Competitor

We the People vs. Mitt Romney

Rothbard on Neoconservatives

SA@TAC – What’s a ‘Neoconservative?’ 

Conservative vs. Neoconservative

SA@TAC – Taking the ‘Neo’ Out of ‘Conservative’

SA@TAC – The Great Neo-Con: Libertarianism Isn’t ‘Conservative’ 

Nick Gillespie Discusses Ron Paul, Libertarianism & Iowa on C-SPAN

SA@TAC – Constant Conservative Ron Paul

TEA Party Movement Hijacked by Big Government NEO-Cons – Who will win?

Background Articles and Videos

Ron Paul: South Carolina Voter Fraud (Ron Paul can End the Push for WW3)

The Real Newt Gingrich

Rothbard destroys a common statist argument

Neoconservativism

“…Neoconservatism is a variant of the political ideology of conservatism which rejects the utopianism and egalitarianism of modern liberalism but sees a role for the welfare state.[1] Their main emphasis since 1990 has been using American power to foster democracy abroad, especially in the Middle East. They were notably visible in Republican administrations of George H.W. Bush (1989-93) and George W. Bush (2001-2009).

Neoconservatism was developed by former liberals, who in the late 1960s began to oppose many of the policies and principles associated with President Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society programs.[2]

Terminology

The term “neoconservative” was popularized in the United States in 1973 by Socialist leader Michael Harrington,, who applied it his opposition to the policy ideas of Daniel Bell, Daniel Patrick Moynihan, and Irving Kristol.[3]

The “neoconservative” label was embraced by Irving Kristol in his 1979 article “Confessions of a True, Self-Confessed ‘Neoconservative.'”[4] His ideas have been influential since the 1950s, when he co-founded and edited Encounter magazine.[5] Another source was Norman Podhoretz, editor of Commentary magazine from 1960 to 1995. By 1982 Podhoretz was calling himself a neoconservative, in a New York Times Magazine article titled “The Neoconservative Anguish over Reagan’s Foreign Policy”.[6][7] In the late 1970s and early 1980s, the neoconservatives were driven by “the notion that liberalism” had failed and “no longer knew what it was talking about, ” according to E. J. Dionne,[8]

The term neoconservative, which originally was used by a socialist to criticize the politics of Social Democrats, USA,[9] has since 1980 been used as a criticism against proponents of American modern liberalism who had “moved to the right”.[4][10] The term “neoconservative” was the subject of increased media coverage during the presidency of George W. Bush,[11][12] with particular focus on a perceived neoconservative influence on American foreign policy, as part of the Bush Doctrine.[13] The term neocon is often used as pejorative in this context.

History

Through the 1950s and early 1960s the future neoconservatives had supported the American Civil Rights Movement, integration, and Martin Luther King, Jr..[14] From the 1950s to the 1960s, there was broad support among liberals to support military action to prevent a communist victory in Vietnam.[15]

Neoconservatism was triggered by the repudiation of coalition politics by the American New Left:

  • Black Power, which denounced coalition-politics and racial integration as “selling out” and “Uncle Tomism” and which frequently gave rise to anti-semitic outbursts,
  • anti-anticommunism, which seemed indifferent to the fate of Southern Vietnam, and which in the late 1960s included substantial support for Marxist Leninist movements, and
  • the “new politics” of the New left, which upheld students and alienated minorities as the agents of social change (replacing the majority of the population and the labor movement).[16] Irving Kristol edited the journal The Public Interest (1965–2005), featuring economists and political scientists, focused on ways that government planning in the liberal state had produced unintended harmful consequences.[17]

Norman Podhoretz’s magazine Commentary of the American Jewish Committee, originally a journal of the liberal left, became a major voice for neoconservatives in the 1970s. Commentary published an article by Jeanne Kirkpatrick, an early and prototypical neoconservative, albeit not a New Yorker.

New York Intellectuals

Many neoconservatives had been on the left in the 1930s and 1940s, where they opposed Stalinism. After WWII, they continued to oppose Stalinism and to support democracy during the Cold War. Of these, many were emerged from intellectual milieu of New York City.[26]

Michael Lind’s view

Michael Lind wrote:

“Most neoconservative defense intellectuals have their roots on the left, not the right. They are products of the influential Jewish-American sector of the Trotskyist movement of the 1930s and 1940s, which morphed into anti-communist liberalism between the 1950s and 1970s and finally into a kind of militaristic and imperial right with no precedents in American culture or political history. Their admiration for the Israeli Likud party’s tactics, including preventive warfare such as Israel’s 1981 raid on Iraq’s Osirak nuclear reactor, is mixed with odd bursts of ideological enthusiasm for “democracy.” They call their revolutionary ideology “Wilsonianism” (after President Woodrow Wilson), but it is really Trotsky’s theory of the permanent revolution mingled with the far-right Likud strain of Zionism. Genuine American Wilsonians believe in self-determination for people such as the Palestinians.””The major link between the conservative think tanks and the Israel lobby is the Washington-based and Likud-supporting Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (Jinsa), which co-opts many non-Jewish defense experts by sending them on trips to Israel.”[27]

Lind’s “amalgamation of the defense intellectuals with the traditions and theories of ‘the largely Jewish-American Trotskyist movement’ [in Lind’s words]” was criticized in 2003 by University of Michigan professor Alan M. Wald,[28] who had discussed Trotskyism in his history of “the New York intellectuals”.[29][30] Most were socialists, social-democrats, or liberal Democrats into the 1960s, when they were confronted with the New Left and rethought their positions. Many supported Senator Henry M. Jackson, a liberal Democrat in domestic affairs who criticized the human-rights violations of the Soviet Union in the 1970s.[31]

Rejecting the American New Left and McGovern’s New Politics

Kirkpatrick’s political evolution was similar to those of other socialists, social-democrats, and liberals who became neoconservatives. They rejected the counterculture of the 1960s New Left, and what they saw as anti-Americanism in the non-interventionism of the movement against the Vietnam War. When the anti-war element took control of the party in 1972 and nominated George McGovern, the democrats among them followed the lead of Washington Senator Henry Jackson and revolted. Historian Justin Vaïsse calls this the “Second Age” of Neoconservatism, with its emphasis on the Cold War.[32]

As the policies of the New Left pushed the Democrats to the Left, these intellectuals became disillusioned with President Lyndon B. Johnson’s Great Society domestic programs. The influential 1970 bestseller The Real Majority by Ben Wattenberg expressed that the “real majority” of the electorate supported economic liberalism but social conservatism, and warned Democrats it could be disastrous to take liberal stances on certain social and crime issues.[33]

Many supported Democratic senator Henry M. “Scoop” Jackson in his unsuccessful 1972 and 1976 campaigns for president. Among those who worked for Jackson were future neoconservatives Paul Wolfowitz, Doug Feith, and Richard Perle. In the late 1970s neoconservative support moved to Ronald Reagan, the Republican hawk who promised to confront Soviet expansionism.

In another (2004) article, Michael Lind also wrote [34]

Neoconservatism… originated in the 1970s as a movement of anti-Soviet liberals and social democrats in the tradition of Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, Humphrey and Henry (‘Scoop’) Jackson, many of whom preferred to call themselves ‘paleoliberals.’ [After the end of the Cold War]… many ‘paleoliberals’ drifted back to the Democratic center… Today’s neocons are a shrunken remnant of the original broad neocon coalition. Nevertheless, the origins of their ideology on the left are still apparent. The fact that most of the younger neocons were never on the left is irrelevant; they are the intellectual (and, in the case of William Kristol and John Podhoretz, the literal) heirs of older ex-leftists.

Leo Strauss and his students

Neoconservatism draws on several intellectual traditions. The students of political science Professor Leo Strauss (1899–1973) comprised one major group. Eugene Sheppard notes that, “Much scholarship tends to understand Strauss as an inspirational founder of American neoconservatism.”[35] Strauss was a refugee from Nazi Germany who taught at the New School for Social Research in New York (1939–49) and the University of Chicago (1949–1958).[36]

Strauss asserted that “the crisis of the West consists in the West’s having become uncertain of its purpose.” Resolution lay in a restoration of the vital ideas and faith that in the past had sustained the moral purpose of the West. Classical Greek political philosophy and the Judeo-Christian heritage are the pillars of the Great Tradition in Strauss’s work.[37] Strauss laid great emphasis on spirit of the Greek classics and West (1991) argues that for Strauss the American Founding Fathers were correct in their understanding of the classics in their principles of justice. For Strauss, political community is defined by convictions about justice and happiness rather than by sovereignty and force. He repudiated the philosophy of John Locke as a bridge to 20th-century historicism and nihilism, and defended liberal democracy as closer to the spirit of the classics than other modern regimes. For Strauss, the American awareness of ineradicable evil in human nature, and hence the need for morality, was a beneficial outgrowth of the premodern Western tradition.[38] O’Neill (2009) notes that Strauss wrote little about American topics but his students wrote a great deal, and that Strauss’s influence led his students to reject historicism and positivism. Instead they promoted an Aristotelian perspective on America that produced a qualified defense of its liberal constitutionalism.[39] Strauss influenced Weekly Standard editor William Kristol, editor John Podhoretz, and military strategist Paul Wolfowitz.[40][41]

1990s

During the 1990s, neoconservatives were once again in the opposition side of the foreign policy establishment, both under the Republican Administration of President George H. W. Bush and that of his Democratic successor, President Bill Clinton. Many critics charged that the neoconservatives lost their influence following the collapse of the Soviet Union.[42]

The movement was galvanized by the decision of George H. W. Bush and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Colin Powell to leave Saddam Hussein in power after the first Gulf War in 1991. Many neoconservatives viewed this policy, and the decision not to support indigenous dissident groups such as the Kurds and Shiites in their 1991-1992 resistance to Hussein, as a betrayal of democratic principles.[citation needed]

Ironically, some of those same targets of criticism would later become fierce advocates of neoconservative policies. In 1992, referring to the first Gulf War, then United States Secretary of Defense and future Vice President Dick Cheney said:

I would guess if we had gone in there, I would still have forces in Baghdad today. We’d be running the country. We would not have been able to get everybody out and bring everybody home…. And the question in my mind is how many additional American casualties is Saddam [Hussein] worth? And the answer is not that damned many. So, I think we got it right, both when we decided to expel him from Kuwait, but also when the president made the decision that we’d achieved our objectives and we were not going to go get bogged down in the problems of trying to take over and govern Iraq.[43]

Within a few years of the Gulf War in Iraq, many neoconservatives were pushing to oust Saddam Hussein. On February 19, 1998, an open letter to President Clinton appeared, signed by dozens of pundits, many identified with neoconservatism and, later, related groups such as the PNAC, urging decisive action to remove Saddam from power.[44]

Neoconservatives were also members of the blue team, which argued for a confrontational policy toward the People’s Republic of China and strong military and diplomatic support for Taiwan.

In the late 1990s Irving Kristol and other writers in neoconservative magazines began touting anti-Darwinist views, in support of intelligent design. Since these neoconservatives were largely of secular backgrounds, a few commentators have speculated that this – along with support for religion generally – may have been a case of a “noble lie”, intended to protect public morality, or even tactical politics, to attract religious supporters.[45] …”

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

Progressivism

“…Progressivism is an umbrella term for a political ideology advocating or favoring social, political, and economic reform or changes through the state. Progressivism is often viewed by its advocates to be in opposition to conservative or reactionary ideologies.

The Progressive Movement began in the late 19th and early 20th centuries in cities with settlement workers and reformers who were interested in helping those facing harsh conditions at home and at work. The reformers spoke out about the need for laws regulating tenement housing and child labor. They also called for better working conditions for women.

The term progressivism emerged in reference to a more general response to the vast changes brought by industrialization: an alternative to the traditional conservative response to social and economic issues and, despite being associated with left-wing politics, to the various more radical streams of communism or anarchism.

Political parties, such as the Progressive Party, organized at the start of the 20th century, and progressivism was embraced in the administrations of American Presidents Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Lyndon Baines Johnson.[1] Moreover, in the United States and Canada, the term “progressive” has occasionally been used by groups not particularly left-wing. The Progressive Democrats in the Republic of Ireland took the name “progressivism” despite being considered centre-right or classical liberal. The European Progressive Democrats was a mainly heterogeneous political group in the European Union. For most of the period from 1942–2003, the largest conservative party in Canada was the Progressive Conservative Party. …”

“…United States

In the United States there have been several periods where progressive political parties have developed. The first of these was around the turn of the 20th century.[6] This period notably included the emergence of the Progressive Party, founded in 1912 by President Theodore Roosevelt. This progressive party was the most successful third party in modern American history. The Progressive Party founded in 1924 and the Progressive Party founded in 1948 were less successful than the 1912 version. There are also two notable state progressive parties: the Wisconsin Progressive Party and the Vermont Progressive Party. The latter is still in operation and currently has several high ranking positions in state government.

Today, most progressive politicians in the United States associate with the Democratic Party or the Green Party of the United States. In the US Congress there exists the Congressional Progressive Caucus, which is often in opposition to the more conservative Democrats, who form the Blue Dogs caucus. Some of the more notable progressive members of Congress have included Ted Kennedy, Russ Feingold,[7] Dennis Kucinich, Barney Frank, Bernie Sanders, Al Franken, John Conyers, John Lewis, and Paul Wellstone.[citation needed] ….”

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

Libertarianism

“…Libertarianism is a term describing philosophies which emphasize freedom, individual liberty, voluntary association and respect of property rights. Based on these, libertarians advocate a society with small or no government power.

Overview

Libertarian schools of thought differ over the degree to which the state should be reduced. Anarchists advocate complete elimination of the state. Minarchists advocate a state which is limited to protecting its citizens from aggression, theft, breach of contract, and fraud. Some libertarians go further, such as by supporting minimal public assistance for the poor.[1] Additionally, some schools are supportive of private property rights in the ownership of unappropriated land and natural resources while others reject such private ownership and often support common ownership instead.[2][3][4] Another distinction can be made among libertarians who support private ownership and those that support common ownership of the means of production; the former generally supporting a capitalist economy, the latter a libertarian socialist economic system. In some parts of the world, the term “libertarianism” is synonymous with Left anarchism.[5]

Libertarians can broadly be characterized as holding four ethical views: consequentialism, deontological theories, contractarianism, and class-struggle normative beliefs. The main divide is between consequentialist libertarianism—which is support for a large degree of “liberty” because it leads to favorable consequences, such as prosperity or efficiency—and deontological libertarianism (also known as “rights-theorist libertarianism,” “natural rights libertarianism,” or “libertarian moralism”), which is a philosophy based on belief in moral self-ownership and opposition to “initiation of force” and fraud.[6] [7] Others combine a hybrid of consequentialist and deontologist thinking.[8] Another view, contractarian libertarianism, holds that any legitimate authority of government derives not from the consent of the governed, but from contract or mutual agreement,[9][10][11] though this can be seen as reducible to consequentialism or deontologism depending on what grounds contracts are justified. Some Libertarian Socialists with backgrounds influenced by Marxism reject deontological and consequential approaches and use normative class-struggle methodologies rooted in Hegelian thought to justify direct action in pursuit of liberty.[12]

In the United States, the term libertarian is commonly associated with those who have conservative positions on economic issues and liberal positions on social issues.[13]

Alternative definitions

Philosopher Roderick T. Long defines libertarianism as “any political position that advocates a radical redistribution of power from the coercive state to voluntary associations of free individuals”, whether “voluntary association” takes the form of the free market or of communal co-operatives.[14]

Etymology

The use of the word “libertarian” to describe a set of political positions can be tracked to the French cognate, libertaire, which was coined in 1857 by French anarchist Joseph Déjacque who used the term to distinguish his libertarian communist approach from the mutualism advocated by Pierre-Joseph Proudhon.[15] Hence libertarian has been used by some as a synonym for left-wing anarchism since the 1890s.[16] Libertarian socialists, such as Noam Chomsky and Colin Ward, assert that many still consider the term libertarianism a synonym of anarchism in countries other than the US.[5]

History

Origins

During the 18th century Age of Enlightenment, “liberal” ideas flourished in Europe and North America. Libertarians of various schools were influenced by classical liberal ideas.[17][Full citation needed] The term libertarian in a metaphysical or philosophical sense was first used by late-Enlightenment free-thinkers to refer to those who believed in free will, as opposed to determinism.[18] The first recorded use was in 1789 by William Belsham in a discussion of free will and in opposition to “necessitarian” (or determinist) views.[19][20]

The first anarchist journal to use the term “libertarian” was La Libertaire, Journal du Mouvement Social and it was published in New York City between 1858 and 1861 by French anarcho-communist Joseph Déjacque. “The next recorded use of the term was in Europe, when “libertarian communism” was used at a French regional anarchist Congress at Le Havre (16-22 November, 1880). January the following year saw a French manifesto issued on “Libertarian or Anarchist Communism.” Finally, 1895 saw leading anarchists Sébastien Faure and Louise Michel publish La Libertaire in France.” The word stems from the French word libertaire, and was used to evade the French ban on anarchist publications. In this tradition, the term “libertarianism” in “libertarian socialism” is generally used as a synonym for anarchism, which some say is the original meaning of the term; hence “libertarian socialism” is equivalent to “socialist anarchism” to these scholars.[21] In the context of the European socialist movement, libertarian has conventionally been used to describe those who opposed state socialism, such as Mikhail Bakunin. The association of socialism with libertarianism predates that of capitalism, and many anti-authoritarians still decry what they see as a mistaken association of capitalism with libertarianism in the United States.[22]

Twentieth century

During the early 20th century modern liberalism in the United States began to take a more state-oriented approach to economic regulation. While conservatism in Europe continued to mean conserving hierarchical class structures through state control of society and the economy, some conservatives in the United States began to refer to conserving traditions of liberty. This was especially true of the Old Right, who opposed the New Deal and U.S. military interventions in World War I and World War II. Those who held to the earlier liberal views began to call themselves market liberals, classic liberals or libertarians to distinguish themselves. The Austrian School of economics, influenced by Frédéric Bastiat and later by Ludwig von Mises, also had an impact on what is now right-libertarianism.

In the 1950s many with “Old Right” or classical liberal beliefs in the United States began to describe themselves as “libertarian.” Arizona United States Senator Barry Goldwater’s right-libertarian leaning challenge to authority also influenced the US libertarian movement.[23]

During the 1960s, the Vietnam War divided right-libertarians, anarchist libertarians, and conservatives.[citation needed] Right-libertarians and left-libertarians opposed to the war joined the draft resistance and peace movements and began founding their own publications, like Murray Rothbard’s The Libertarian Forum[24] and organizations like the Radical Libertarian Alliance[25] and the Society for Individual Liberty.[26]

In 1971, a small group of Americans led by David Nolan formed the U.S. Libertarian Party. Attracting former Democrats, Republicans and independents, the party has run a presidential candidate every election year since 1972. Over the years, dozens of capitalism-supporting libertarian political parties have been formed worldwide. Educational organizations like the Center for Libertarian Studies and the Cato Institute were formed in the 1970s, and others have been created since then.

Right-libertarianism gained a significant measure of recognition in academia with the publication of Harvard University professor Robert Nozick’s Anarchy, State, and Utopia in 1974. The book won a National Book Award in 1975.[27][28] Nozick disavowed some of his theory late in life.[29] Academics as well as proponents of the free market perspectives note that free-market capitalist libertarianism has been successfully propagated beyond the United States since the 1970s via think tanks and political parties.[30]

…”

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

Libertarianism in the United States

“…Libertarianism in the United States is a movement promoting limited government and individual liberties.[1] Although libertarianism exists in two major forms worldwide, right-libertarianism and left-libertarianism,[2] right-leaning libertarianism tends to be the dominant form in the United States. The right-leaning Libertarian Party, the third largest political party in the United States[3] as of 2008 with 235,500 registered voters,[citation needed] asserts the following to be core beliefs of Libertarianism:

Libertarians support maximum liberty in both personal and economic matters. They advocate a much smaller government; one that is limited to protecting individuals from coercion and violence. Libertarians tend to embrace individual responsibility, oppose government bureaucracy and taxes, promote private charity, tolerate diverse lifestyles, support the free market, and defend civil liberties.[4][5]

 History

In the 1950s many with classical liberal beliefs in the United States began to describe themselves as “libertarian.”[6] Academics as well as proponents of the free market perspectives note that free-market libertarianism has been successfully propagated beyond the US since the 1970s via think tanks and political parties[7][8] and that libertarianism is increasingly viewed worldwide as a free market position.[9][10] However, Libertarian socialists Noam Chomsky, Colin Ward and others argue that the term “libertarianism” is globally considered a synonym for anarchism and that the United States is unique in widely associating it with free market ideology.[11][12][13]

Arizona United States Senator Barry Goldwater’s libertarian-oriented challenge to authority had a major impact on the libertarian movement,[14] through his book The Conscience of a Conservative and his run for president in 1964.[15] Goldwater’s speech writer, Karl Hess, became a leading libertarian writer and activist.[16]

The Vietnam War split the uneasy alliance between growing numbers of self-identified libertarians, anarchist libertarians, and more traditional conservatives who believed in limiting liberty to uphold moral virtues. Libertarians opposed to the war joined the draft resistance and peace movements and organizations such as Students for a Democratic Society. They began founding their own publications, like Murray Rothbard’s The Libertarian Forum[17][18] and organizations like the Radical Libertarian Alliance.[19]

The split was aggravated at the 1969 Young Americans for Freedom convention, when more than 300 libertarians organized to take control of the organization from conservatives. The burning of a draft card in protest to a conservative proposal against draft resistance sparked physical confrontations among convention attendees, a walkout by a large number of libertarians, the creation of libertarian organizations like the Society for Individual Liberty, and efforts to recruit potential libertarians from conservative organizations.[20] The split was finalized in 1971 when conservative leader William F. Buckley, Jr., in a 1971 New York Times article, attempted to divorce libertarianism from the freedom movement. He wrote: “The ideological licentiousness that rages through America today makes anarchy attractive to the simple-minded. Even to the ingeniously simple-minded.”[21]

In 1971, David Nolan and a few friends formed the Libertarian Party.[22] Attracting former Democrats, Republicans and independents, it has run a presidential candidate every election year since 1972. By 2006, polls showed that 15 percent of American voters identified themselves as libertarian.[23] Over the years, dozens of libertarian political parties have been formed worldwide. Educational organizations like the Center for Libertarian Studies and the Cato Institute were formed in the 1970s, and others have been created since then.[24]

Philosophical libertarianism gained a significant measure of recognition in academia with the publication of Harvard University professor Robert Nozick’s Anarchy, State, and Utopia in 1974. The book won a National Book Award in 1975.[25] According to libertarian essayist Roy Childs, “Nozick’s Anarchy, State, and Utopia single-handedly established the legitimacy of libertarianism as a political theory in the world of academia.”[26]

Texas congressman Ron Paul’s campaign for the 2008 Republican presidential nomination was largely oriented towards libertarianism. Paul is affiliated with the libertarian-leaning Republican Liberty Caucus and founded the Campaign for Liberty, a libertarian-leaning membership and lobbying organization.

Organizations

Well-known libertarian organizations include the Center for Libertarian Studies, the Cato Institute, the Foundation for Economic Education (FEE), the International Society for Individual Liberty (ISIL) and the Ludwig von Mises Institute. The Libertarian Party of the United States is the world’s first such party.

The activist Free State Project, formed in 2001, works to bring 20,000 libertarians to the state of New Hampshire to influence state policy. In March 2009, the project website showed that more than 650 were resident there and more than 9,150 had pledged to move there.[27] Less successful similar projects include the Free West Alliance and Free State Wyoming.

Leaders

Politicians

United States Congressman Ron Paul and United States Senator Barry Goldwater popularized libertarian economics and anti-statist rhetoric in the United States and passed some reforms. United States President Ronald Reagan tried to appeal to them in a speech, though many libertarians are ambivalent about Reagan’s legacy.[28]

Intellectuals

Individuals influential to libertarianism in the United States include Ayn Rand, Ludwig Von Mises, William F. Buckley, Murray Rothbard, and Milton Friedman.

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



Make a Comment

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

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

Liked it here?
Why not try sites on the blogroll...

%d bloggers like this: