The Problem with Libertarianism – Patriot Update

The Problem with Libertarianism – Patriot Update:

In many Patriot columns, I have defended free market or libertarian economics. However, this is only one of the legs of the “three-legged stool of conservatism”, as Ronald Reagan, the greatest 20^th century American president put it. The other two are a strong national defence and good moral values, i.e. pro-life and pro-marriage/family. Take one leg away, and the stool collapses.

As I’ve argued before, Michele Bachmann is such a good candidate because she stands the most consistently for all three. My second preference, Newt Gingrich, is also strong on all three. See for example defences of Newt’s economically conservative record, pro-life consistency, and his smack-down of Ron Paul on national security below:

However, Gingrich has some negatives Bachmann lacks, including love for ethanol subsidies and repeated admiration of depression-prolonging FDR—not Reagan—as the 20^th century’s greatest president.

Conversely, Mitt Romney’s actual record, as opposed to his recent talk, shows that he’s very weak at least on the economic and moral legs. But then we come to Ron Paul, who is well known as a libertarian, so is quite good on the economic leg, but atrocious on the other two—see black conservative AlfonZo Rachel explain below:

Actually, those who want libertarian results as opposed to libertarian posturing should consider that Dr Gingrich has done far more than Dr Paul. The Club for Growth summarizes Dr Paul’s problem: the glass is always 20% empty with him, never 80% full:

See original work for more on this and other stories.