When Liberatarians and Conservatives Clash

By Douglas V. Gibbs

A clash in a group I am a member of where a Libertarian was offended by it being assumed she was a Conservative and then made an off-hand remark that unlike Conservatives she did not support slavery or racial segregation, and a moderate was freaking out because the Libertarian insinuated (maybe) that the other person supported Eugenics, became a battle of Left versus Right and Libertarianism versus Authoritarianism.

As a Constitutional Originalist, I had to add my two cents, and thought you'd enjoy it too. . .

I wrote:

Of course, even Conservatives do not support slavery or racial segregation, and most folks do not realize that it was the Democrat Party filibustering against Civil Rights Legislation until finally a compromise was made in 1964 that pushed a piece of legislation through. I don't really call myself a Conservative or a Libertarian, though I have many friends who claim such. The differences between Conservatives and Libertarians are small, but basically revolves around where the limitations on government ceases. Libertarians tend to demand more limitations than conservatives on more local governments, while the federal limitations expected are usually similar between the two groups (national security issues not included) - but ultimately we are all on the same side and should not battle over our small differences.

I consider myself a Constitutional Originalist. My aim is to see that our federal government follows the limiting principles enumerated by the U.S. Constitution. If an authority is not listed in Article I, Section 8, or in any subsequent amendments, then the federal government can't do it - period. The use of legal precedent or judiciary interpretation of the Constitution is not in line with the original intention (and was interestingly enough a practice began by Alexander Hamilton who, though he sounded quite Jeffersonian in his writings he authored in the Federalist Papers, his later actions were hardly based on limiting principles) of the founding fathers. The Federalists, Whigs, and early Republicans were Hamiltonians, but the torch changed over to the Democrats once progressivism took hold of that party (beginning with Wilson). Interestingly enough, the first truly progressive president was Teddy Roosevelt (a Republican), and during the 1800s the presidents that held to limiting principles tended to be Democrats. Since Teddy Roosevelt there has only been three presidents I believe to have not been progressives: Harding, Coolidge, and Reagan. The rest of them, in one way or another, held to progressive ideals (and yes, that includes Dubya).

As for eugenics, in America the driving force behind such madness in the beginning was Margaret Sanger, who interestingly enough is also considered the mother of the Planned Parenthood centers. The desire for a better citizen began with the idea of eliminating the undesired citizens, even before they are born, if possible. If that isn't a sinister ploy, I don't know what is.

Eugenics is definitely a progressive, or liberal, thing.

As for libertarian versus authoritarian, that is still a left vs. right thing, even if you desire to deny that to be the truth. The American political spectrum does not use the old European system of secularism versus the monarchy and church. The current scale places no government (or anarchy) on the far right, and total government on the far left. Conservatives, Libertarians, and the U.S. Constitution sit a little to the right of center on that scale. Authoritarianism is far left. But, instead of right versus left, or Conservatives and Libertarians versus liberals, I believe our political game has come down to right versus wrong - as judged by the U.S. Constitution, and the principles held within the text of that document.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary