United States News
See other United States News Articles
Title: Libertarians are flexing their political muscle
Source:
Rare
URL Source: http://rare.us/rare-politics/rare-l ... lexing-their-political-muscle/
Published: Mar 25, 2017
Author: Jack Hunter
Post Date: 2017-03-25 00:40:23 by Hondo68
Keywords: Freedom Caucus standing for, full repeal of Obamacare, libertarian Republicans, best
Views: 1529
Comments: 21
The American Health Care Act—the “ObamaCare-lite” legislation championed by most Republicans including President Trump and Speaker Paul Ryan—is dead. And it was the most libertarian members of Congress who did the most to kill it—from the very beginning. Reason’s Eric Boehm writes, “On January 13, a week before Donald Trump would take the oath of office and just days after the new session of Congress opened, Republicans in the House passed a budget resolution that was the first step, GOP leaders said, to repealing and replacing Obamacare. The bill passed, 227-198, with just nine Republicans defecting from the party-line effort.” RELATED: The House Freedom Caucus is right to oppose Ryancare because it doesn’t restore competition “That January 13 vote was the first sign—a telling one, in retrospect—that the Freedom Caucus and other libertarian-leaning members of Congress (like Massie and Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky) would become the biggest stumbling block to passing the House GOP healthcare plan,” Boehm notes. And block it, they have. It has been the House Freedom Caucus that has been the most instrumental force in stopping the American Health Care Act, members of which—or even close caucus allies like Rep. Thomas Massie—include the most libertarian members of Congress including co-founder Rep. Justin Amash. The most well known libertarian Republican active in politics in the U.S. today, Sen. Rand Paul, has also been arguably the most high-profile player in the fight to stop the American Health Care Act as written. This is significant. Before Ron Paul’s 2008 and 2012 presidential campaigns spawned a “liberty movement” of activists and political leaders, the influence of which is still being felt to this day (just ask Barack Obama or Donald Trump), you would have had a hard time finding libertarians in Congress period, with the exception of Ron Paul. But today, and for some time, libertarian Republicans have actually had measurable political clout. This has certainly been true on the foreign policy and civil liberties fronts, where, in 2013, it was Rep. Amash who spearheaded the effort to reign in the NSA’s controversial mass surveillance practices with a bill that was unsuccessful by only 12 votes. Some could argue that Sen. Paul has been instrumental in shaping President Trump’s state and defense cabinet with his denunciations of prominent neoconservatives whose names were floated. In the House, Rand Paul’s father Ron Paul would often be the sole “no” vote based on his strict constitutionalist principles. Sen. Paul has been known to be the sole “no” vote in the senate—among Republicans or among everyone—where his single vote can sometimes be more effective than a representative’s would be. Last week, Sen. Paul held up the Balkan nation of Montenegro’s entrance into NATO all by his lonesome, causing the hawkish John McCain to accuse Paul of working for Vladimir Putin. In 2008, McCain dismissed Ron Paul during presidential debates as an “isolationist,” and most Republicans probably agreed with McCain in that still very hawkish post-George W. Bush GOP environment. In 2017, the son of Ron Paul is mucking up McCain’s ability to put America on the hook militarily for yet another foreign country, and while Paul doesn’t have much Senate support, he does have it elsewhere in conservative and libertarian circles. Things have changed, and libertarians have benefitted. Rare’s Barbara Boland writes about how instrumental Paul has been in the House Freedom Caucus’ fight with the GOP establishment over the health care bill, “With the help of Rand Paul in the Senate, the caucus is coming into its own.” “This time, instead of merely standing against something, the Freedom Caucus is standing for what the Republican Party repeatedly promised constituents: a full repeal of Obamacare,” Boland notes. “It also helps that Paul, a physician from Kentucky, has another replacement bill in the Senate that could actually lower the cost of insurance by eliminating government mandates, giving people the freedom to purchase insurance across state lines, allowing customers to join voluntary larger insurance pools and a host of other free-market reforms.” Libertarians favor less government, individual choice and free markets in most things, including healthcare. Most conservative Republicans pretend to favor these things too, or at least when Democrats are in control and their hands are tied to actually do anything. But when Republicans are in control, these one-time small government advocates behave little differently than Democrats in their zeal to “do something.” RELATED: Hey Republican leadership: Health care reform isn’t just something you “do” That’s precisely what Paul Ryan and others have been doing, in their rush to jam through a health care bill that retains the individual mandate Republicans used to say was the worst part of Obamacare. If not for libertarian Republicans, I wouldn’t want much to do with the GOP. They are the best Republicans precisely because they are the most principled. Thankfully, they also have political muscle now too, as this week reminds us. Poster Comment: Small "l" libertarian Republicans. 
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: hondo68 (#0)
Of course you like the wuss Amash. He is like your butt boy Gay Johnson in supporting open borders. He whined and cried be about Trumps immigration order. Amash the pro faggot pretend rights asshole likes gay pretend marriage too just like your boyfriend Gay.
And this has been true for decades, perhaps a great many decades. The failure of a Republican congress and white house to even repeal Obamacare is a very candid lesson to the masses of the fact that the R's and D's are little different from each other. And the individual mandate & skyrocketing health insurance costs is going to make this lesson clear to middle class America, as prior to this, the differences between R's and D's never hit the wallet nearly as much. R's should be collectively embarrassed that they can't even repeal Obamacare with a majority control of everything. It's a great opportunity for Libertarians to show it's appeal to average Americans.
Trump himself didn't like his first executive order, and he changed it. Unlike the previous order, which went into effect immediately, this one will be implemented in 10 days, on March 16, and excludes Iraq. It also excludes green-card holders, dual nationals and people who have been granted asylum or refugee status.
Passing the fake repeal/replace bill would merely cement into place the GOP's complicity in national healthcare and eventual single-payer (which is the end-game, no matter what anyone says). That would be true only if AHCA was an actual repeal of 0Care. But it isn't. No one can seriously pretend that it is.
Then the R's better repeal it. If the R's don't repeal it, Libertarians will have an "I told you so" opportunity to the American people that there his no difference between R's and D's as they've pretty much been saying for a long time.
Yeah, right. The American people aren't listening to Libertarians, never have. They barely listen to Dems or GOPs unless they think they'll get some freebies or have to pay more for something or we get into a losing war. You overestimate the voters, I think. Look at the clowns and charlatans they like to elect to lead them. It isn't encouraging.
Please, dear sir, allow me to complete that sentence for you ... The American people aren't listening to Libertarians, never have and never will. Now, it is factually correct. I simply could not pass up the golden opportunity to be factually correct. Thank you ..
We really should tear down that awful Statue of Liberty too. Americans really do hate that bitch. Funny. Until after the Civil War, only Lady Liberty was ever seen on any national symbol or coinage. Dishonest Abe was the beginning of the corrupt presidents whose images now disgrace all our currency and many monuments and named places. So, yeah, liberty is definitely unpopular. Libertinism, OTOH, ...
That's because they've been listening to the R's and D's. And if the R's with a full majority in both congress and the WH can't repeal Obamacare, then it's a WTF moment for them. Unlike before where it's just political philosophy, Americans now are hearing things with their wallets and that should/could go much farther. Well, the MSM and the Clinton campaign underestimated the voters. And while I don't expect Libertarians to start making inroads in winning Congressional seats any time soon, I would expect the message of L's to start resonating. Again, if Obamacare does not get repealed by the R's which I think is a distinct possibility.
That can be said of any of America's great number of third parties. Just because we haven't ever heard much about them doesn't mean they don't exist. Let's take an example that few people have ever heard of, even if they live in one of the states where one of these parties has operated over many years: the Prohibition Party... The Prohibition Party has continued running presidential candidates every four years, but its vote totals have steadily dwindled. It last received more than 100,000 votes for president in 1948, and the 1976 election was the last time the party received more than 10,000 votes. The Prohibition Party experienced a schism in 2003, as the party's prior presidential candidate, Earl Dodge, incorporated a rival party called the National Prohibition Party in Colorado.[16][17] An opposing faction nominated Gene C. Amondson for President and filed under the Prohibition banner in Louisiana. Dodge ran under the name of the historic Prohibition Party in Colorado,[18] while the Concerns of People Party allowed Amondson to run on its line against Dodge.[19] Amondson received 1,944 votes, nationwide, while Dodge garnered 140. One key area of disagreement between the factions was over who should control payments from a trust fund dedicated to the Prohibition Party by George Pennock in 1930.[20] The fund pays approximately $8,000 per year, and during the schism these funds were divided between the factions.[21] Dodge died in 2007, allowing the dispute over the Pennock funds to finally be resolved in 2014.[22] The party is reported as having only "three dozen fee-paying members".[23] You end up after 150 years with less than 40 paying members, squabbling over which faction of the party gets the $32,000 every 4 years from a 1930 trust fund. You get the idea. The LP is aging and not recruiting younger members the way it should if it is expected to grow. If you've ever watched their big convention on CSPAN in a presidential election year, it is...not encouraging. Look at their nomination of Gary Whozit from NM with William Weld (!) of MA who spent half the campaign trying to endorse Hitlery for prez. It was a sad, sad exhibition. If you wondered why I picked on the Prohibition Party: "The Prohibition Party has nominated a candidate for president in every election since 1872, and is thus the longest-lived American political party after the Democrats and Republicans." So they have been the alternative to the R's and D's since the time of our great-great-great-grandparents. And hardly any of us have ever heard of them.
I think the internet age has the potential to change things, and Trump's winning the election is evidence of what impact the internet can have. I don't think Trump would have won at all if the internet was what it was in 2008. So historical precedent going back 100-150 years is meaningless. Tech is growing exponentially and it's impacting civilization and society in more and more profound ways. And as I already said, I'm not saying the L's are going to start winning congressional seats en masse any time soon. I'm speaking only of the L message, that if the R's even with a majority control of congress and the WH can't repeal something they've complained about for 7 years, a lot of pissed off Americans who are paying through the nose for mandatory health insurance are going to be more open to hearing alternative ideas that are not R or D based. Of all 3rd parties out there, the L part is the biggest one going right now. It is true that freedom minded people are less likely to conform, and that makes it harder for L types to unify. That could be why political parties advocating more control of society have an edge in taking control of government.
And there is a big spoils system in place to keep the pols of both parties interested. The LP can offer nothing like that and is opposed to having political spoils at all. So Big Money wants and will pay for the two parties competing for control of the federal spoils system. They don't want any changes.
Not sure what you mean by "spoils" but the pluralist voting system in place today is what I say ensures a two party system. It's why I advocate Approval voting.
I'm surprised you've never heard of a spoils system in politics. It's not exactly a new term in poli sci or history.
If you are referring to 3rd party candidates siphoning off votes from an R or D, causing the other to win, yes. But in the context you gave: I guess I don't understand your sentence.
And yes, the pluralist voting system is very subject to "spoiling" in primaries. Consider 5 R candidates for a single seat. Four are conservative with varying views, and one liberal. The liberal gets 30% of the vote, and the other 4 whom all have good general support among the other 70% of R's voting split it up, The biggest winner getting 25%. So the liberal ends up winning the primary even though 70% of the voting base really despises him. Approval voting would fix that. In fact, with AV, you don't even really need political parties.
You're talking about third parties supposedly "spoiling" an election. Whoever wins elections controls the political spoils system. Like contracts and where federal facilities are built and what kind of weapons systems get built in various states, etc. It's the political spoils system of the military-industrial complex. The current perfect example is the coal industry. After supporting Trump in states like PA, OH, WV, Trump awarded them the spoils of a repeal of 0bama's regulations on coal power and coal production that were written to shut them down. So, you've never heard heard the term "to the victor go the spoils"?
I certainly have heard of that phrase, but I have honestly never heard it applied in an election context. I would say it's a bad connotation, though perhaps still fitting, given what politics is.
Who Owns Obamacare Now?
#2. To: hondo68 (#0)
But when Republicans are in control, these one-time small government advocates behave little differently than Democrats in their zeal to “do something.”
#3. To: A K A Stone (#1)
(Edited)
He whined and cried be about Trumps immigration order
www.washingtonpost.com/gr...trump-compare-travel-ban/ The D&R terrorists hate us because we're free, to vote second party
"We (government) need to do a lot less, a lot sooner" ~Ron Paul
#4. To: All (#0)
YOU DON’T SAY …
They pulled their Health Care bill …
I am shocked, really shocked …
#5. To: Pinguinite (#2)
R's should be collectively embarrassed that they can't even repeal Obamacare with a majority control of everything.
t's a great opportunity for Libertarians to show it's appeal to average Americans.
#6. To: Tooconservative (#5)
Passing the fake repeal/replace bill would merely cement into place the GOP's complicity in national healthcare and eventual single-payer (which is the end-game, no matter what anyone says).
It's a great opportunity for Libertarians to show it's appeal to average Americans.
That would be true only if AHCA was an actual repeal of 0Care. But it isn't. No one can seriously pretend that it is.
#7. To: Pinguinite (#6)
If the R's don't repeal it, Libertarians will have an "I told you so" opportunity to the American people...
#8. To: Tooconservative (#7)
The American people aren't listening to Libertarians, never have.
#9. To: Gatlin (#8)
#10. To: Tooconservative (#7)
The American people aren't listening to Libertarians, never have.
You overestimate the voters, I think.
#11. To: Pinguinite, Gatlin (#10)
(Edited)
That's because they've been listening to the R's and D's.
The Prohibition Party has faded into obscurity since World War II. When it briefly changed its name to the "National Statesman Party" in 1977 (it reversed the change in 1980), Time magazine suggested that it was "doubtful" that the name change would "hoist the party out of the category of political oddity".[15]
#12. To: Tooconservative (#11)
#13. To: Pinguinite (#12)
It is true that freedom minded people are less likely to conform, and that makes it harder for L types to unify. That could be why political parties advocating more control of society have an edge in taking control of government.
#14. To: Tooconservative (#9)
(Edited)
#15. To: Tooconservative (#13)
#16. To: Pinguinite (#15)
#17. To: Tooconservative (#16)
I'm surprised you've never heard of a spoils system in politics.
And there is a big spoils system in place to keep the pols of both parties interested.
#18. To: Tooconservative (#16)
#19. To: Pinguinite (#18)
(Edited)
#20. To: Tooconservative (#19)
So, you've never heard heard the term "to the victor go the spoils"?
#21. To: Tooconservative (#9)
Mark Meadows and the so-called Freedom Caucus.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]