In response to:

The Republicans' Primary Problem

MoreFreedom Wrote: Feb 07, 2013 11:14 AM
The difference between "fiscally conservative social liberals" (you could call them libertarians) and social conservatives, is that social conservatives want to use government to create and enforce laws regarding behavior that they consider offensive, yet harm no one except perhaps those engaging in such behavior. Social conservatives are just like liberals in using government to force their "virtues" onto others. It's just that their idea of what's virtuous is different. Wouldn't it be better to restrict government to dealing with situations in which force has already been used against someone or their property (e.g., theft, assault, fraud, breach of contract, etc.)?
Stuart95 Wrote: Feb 07, 2013 11:20 AM
MoreFreedom, Between you and me, we know that libertarianism is the only political philosophy that maximizes freedom - that situation that gives man the best opportunity to live a happy and prosperous life - and minimizes the likelihood that an opposing party will come to power and visit upon society the opposite extremes visited upon society by the previous regime.

But that's a difficult point to grasp for most people, so we don't use the L-word when talking about enlisting the libertarians to help defeat socialism and its attendant loss of freedom.

Having just lost an election, many Republicans are anxious to remake our party in the image of Democrats. The theory seems to be that whatever we're doing isn't working, so we better change everything.

But in fact, whatever Republicans did in 2012 -- other than an overly long primary fight -- worked amazingly well, given the circumstances.

In a detailed analysis of the 2012 election, William A. Galston, a fellow with the liberal Brookings Institution, makes a number of fascinating observations that Republicans would do well to consider before embracing amnesty, abortion, gay marriage and Beyonce.

In my...