After losses, GOP asks: Now what?: Some Republicans are calling for a return to Goldwater-Reagan ideals of limited government and fiscal restraint. (Gail Russell Chaddock, 11/09/06, The Christian Science Monitor)

At stake in the next leadership fight is whether the GOP continues as a party of big conservative government or returns to its ideological roots in the Goldwater and Reagan eras, say libertarian critics.

“This is all a debate leading up to 2008, which is when we really get to make our decisions: Are we going to continue to follow the George W. Bush path of big government conservatism or the path of Reagan, Goldwater, and – to some extent – Newt Gingrich,” says Ryan Sager, author of the recent book, “The Elephant in the Room: Evangelicals, Libertarians, and the Battle to Control the Republican Party.”

Libertarians say the GOP’s commitment to a social agenda that bans gay marriage and limits government funding for embryonic stem-cell research also contributed to its defeat this week.

There’s already a party that’s libertine and opposes entitlement reform: The Democrats.

7 Responses to NO TENT IS THAT BIG:

  1. PapayaSF says:

    The tiny handful of us limited-government types tried to tell you that NCLB and drug benefits and Internet gambling bans weren’t going to help, but did anyone listen? No…. And now, OJ wants the huge prohibitionist, pro-Hezbollah, anti-lottery, witchburning, Darwin-is-more-dangerous-than-Hitler wing to push us out of the tent! It’s a day for bad news, I guess.

    But since when do limited-government types oppose entitlement reform? It’s been a major cause for 30 years.

  2. Randall Voth says:

    Papaya — the Saxons in 750 AD had limited government. Is that what you want? Or is what you want Christian neighbors who are unlikely to steal your stuff?

    Christians don’t mind big government because they care enough about their neighbors to believe the golden rule: “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” What Christians don’t like is racist “conservatives” denigrating hard-working Mexicans and devolving society into anything goes libertarianism.

    I agree with OJ — trade libertarians for Hispanics and call.

  3. Jim in Chicago says:


    How you say, mega dittos.

  4. Sandy P says:

    That’s not what’s being said.

    Amnesty on a silver platter then telling us we can’t protect
    our borders as strenuously as they protect theirs doesn’t fly.

    Under #44 we are going to get hit, and most likely hard.

    Obama has presidential ambitions? It needs to come out of the
    mouths of him, Ben Nelson, Bobby Jindahl, and others for whom the
    “racist” label will be harder to stick on.

    As Americans as they profess they want to be and in some cases are,
    why can’t they appreciate the fact we need to protect ourselves?

    Or at least acknowledge we have concerns instead of the Mexican
    ambassador to the UN demanding an EU-style union in no longer
    than 8 years because it has to be done before the boomers retire?

    Unless they’re willing to let us put our troops on their borders.

  5. Orrin says:

    The “Theys” can’t protect their borders despite totalitarianism. Where do you think all the Cubans, Vietnamese, Chinese and eastern Europeans come from? We’re not going to adopt totalitarianism just because you fear brown people. The EU is just a trade union, we already have one with Canada and Mexico. People will move as freely as goods within it.

  6. Lou Gots says:

    Walls will not work were the demand persists. If we were serious, we could stop illegal immigration with draconic enforcement–jail time and forfeiture of property–aimed at those who employ them. It will never happen. We need immigrants in an expanding economy to take the places of the 42 million babies who had gone into the dumpsteers..

  7. Orrin says:

    People want to come here. One of the reasons is because we’re too decent a people to stop them.

%d bloggers like this: