I can't tell you how many people I know who describe themselves as "socially liberal, fiscally conservative". Is that libertarian?

I do take issue, though, with Sullivan's statement:

human conduct is far too complex and nuanced and changeable to be extrapolated to any single person's theory or any movement's ideology

Isn't his free-market stance an ideology too?

it has instigated discussion among sane Christians about distancing themselves from rabid evangelicals (Savage, to his credit, has opened a door they haven't been able to open for themselves).

One could say he "brought them out of the closet."

Ba-Dum-Bum!
Thank you! Thank you very much!

ah... I've been away from SLOG for too long...

@1 fix'd

"human conduct is far too complex and nuanced and changeable to be extrapolated to any single person's theory or any movement's ideology except for the ideology I think is right"

@1 & 3,

But, but, that's not ideology; that's just how things ARE.

I wish the Tea Party nonsense threatend to split off the craziest wing of the Republican party, intead it appears to be metastasizing.

-instead. Gold star for me.

this is the fucking debate we should be having instead we get the trolls and ghosts of premodern ages

The case for free markets and low taxation rests on the idea that people are better judges of what is in their best interest

That's also the problem with free markets and low taxation: People's self-interest.
Especially since that self-interest is too often NOT grounded in real world understanding, e.g., the old people who don't want their taxes to pay for public education because they don't have any kids in school. They completely ignore the reality that educating other people's kids will positively impact their own lives... they think only about the absolute present moment in time and only about their current level of comfort.

I think the part about having the freedom to spend his own money is bogus. What he really means, and people like him mean, is they don't want to pay into a system that supports the healthcare of poor working people. What they fail to understand is as a nation we either stand together or we go down together. When the day comes when you need a two or three million man army, and that day will come, you won't win wars with sick troops and a sick population. There are nations that are working for ALL their people. Who do you think will be the leaders of the future?

Sounds like a mixture of "Austrian School" insistence that the things they "know" about how economies work defy measurement and so cannot be corroborated by facts and figures and "good old-fashioned common sense is better than book-learning" cornpone wisdom.

People (like Sullivan) with a lot of money tend to view laissez-faire economic approaches as increasing their "freedom" because it places fewer restrictions on their buying power. But for the vast majority of people, it means less freedom because they are trading more of their time for less return, and do not have the time or the means to enjoy the "freedoms" that money can buy.

Still, it would be nice to see a return to the brand of fiscal conservatism that believes in taking in as much money as is spent. The current Republican addiction to tax decreases and military adventures precludes this.

@8, @10 are onto something here. For most people, government isn't "on their backs", it's propping them up. Truly free free-market economies are composed of a tiny handful of free individuals who get to make all the decisions and a vast number of peons who work like slaves and die young.

It's been interesting to see the ongoing redefinition of "conservative" as a political philosophy, at least in America. What most people are claiming to be "conservative" sounds a hell of lot like libertarian, what with all the "get the government off my back" talk.

Conservative actually means resistant to change, and if governmental force is needed to resist that change, then, by all means, the government should "maintain social/moral order". (see Jim Crow, DOMA, DADT, etc.) If it is the government that is effecting the change, in a progressive way, then the conservative response is to oppose government action. (see Obamacare, WallSt reform, taxes)

It's still about keeping things the way that work best for you, and a certain fear of change.

So let me get this straight--Sullivan wants to have his cake AND eat it too? How novel.

There is no RepubliKKKan Party, only Zuul!

Practical wisdom, properly understood, is not the sole province of conservatism. Liberals and liberalism have just as much claim on that type of thinking and are not ideologically opposed to it.

Conflating practical wisdom with the free market seems like an exercise in fantabulism.

The free-market is a tyranny, to producers, who must compete their profits away and to consumers, who get to buy only what everyone else is buying. I certainly don't get to buy the things I want, the shoes exactly as I want, the colors I want, the cereal that I most prefer. My preferences are subject to the economics of a generic consumer basic of those in my economic class.

Nevertheless, one does have to admire Sullivan for his earnestness that there really is a 'conservative philosophy' and not just conservatives. Indeed, of all the conservatives one would prefer to make up the civic discourse, it would be his brand, no?

er..."consumer basic" s/b "consumer basket"

Fiscal conservatism can be boiled down to one sentence from Sullivan. "It makes me happy."

That is the beginning and the end of their argument. All the big words and theories and "self-interest" boils down to "It makes me happy." Our government was designed, however, not to ignore those who are unable to reach happiness in this way. This is why it works best when it trends toward liberal causes.

His arguments are not without merit, but they are ultimately selfish. And by all means, I'd happily spend all my days arguing with people about this kind of thing and leave behind all the creationist, sex-phobic nonsense the public Right currently stands for.

Running a country based on the espoused principle of decentralised self-interest seems about as smart as fighting a war (or any other endeavour requiring planning, co-operation and the efficient distribution of resources) based on those principles.

I value the economic liberties that such high taxation takes away, and my ability to choose individually how I spend my money, rather than be forced by the majority to spend it the way that majority wants to.

Yeah, I bet the majority doesn't like people like you who get AIDS on purpose, but whatever.

You have no idea how unbelievably mad I am at the republicans in this state running Dino Rossi. They seriously could have picked anyone else, ANYONE, even that ditter guy, and my chances of voting for him would go up ten fold. I left the democrats in 2007 because they refused to end the wars, and I have no place to go because the republicans are bat shit fucking crazy. If they had any sense, they could mobilize me, an ex-democrat, to work for them, instead they talk about less taxes and less government and less regulation at a time where oil companies are destroying our gulf. We need a sensible party, because I strongly feel like Patty Murray had no challengers this time around. Dino's just looking for any office so he can piss in it and call it his, he's got a huge ego (not to say Patty doesn't) and thinks our military is too fragile to handle gay people. Oh, and borrowing money from China to give to all our rich people and build a wall between the US and Mexico. This party isn't a mainstream party, it's the party of fucking stupid.

Michael Sandel on libertarianism:

http://www.justiceharvard.org/index.php?…

His book "Justice: What's the right thing to do?" is an excellent critique of several strands of political thought. I suspect most everyone has some libertarian impulses, but Sandel does a good job of probing just how far you would be willing to take them.