4 ms·

Reihan isn't a libertarian. He's a young conservative. I know him actually, he sat in on a course I took on the conservative movement in American politics. H

Reihan isn't a libertarian. He's a young conservative. I know him actually, he sat in on a course I took on the conservative movement in American politics. He was the "actual conservative" the professor was showing off to the university students (who presumably aren't exposed to actual conservatives within academe). Reihan's a cool guy and was generally fun to argue with. His author description mentions that he blogs at National Review and works for e21. I know one of the founding members of e21 actually, she used to be my buddy's neighbor. It's definitely not a "non-partisan" economics think tank, just a run-of-the-mill conservative outfit. I thought Reihan was at The New America Foundation, which actually is a non-partisan think tank known for being more sexy/interesting than your mainstream institutions. Maybe he's moved on. Anyway, I agree, it's an odd piece.

madair 17y ago
I was wondering if someone would call him on the libertarian thing. While the general alignment of the person may be conservative, aren't the ideas still considered libertarian? I've been considering a lot how to adjust use of words to make it clearer when I'm talking about ideas, since after all it's the ideas that matter if ideas are what we're discussing in the moment. Party alignments in non-election debate just muddy whatever the individual ideas are representing with preconceptions and even unrelated concepts, and it's harder to see where individuals cross-align, making negotiations and debates even harder than they already would be.
- jbooth 17y ago
  Conservatives and "young conservatives" in particular identify extremely strongly with the Republican party -- given that conservatism tends towards "identify with your own" far more than liberalism, this is significant. Libertarians, entirely different set of motives.
  - Perceval 17y ago
    I'm not sure that's correct. As far as I can tell, young conservatives identify more closely with 'conservatism' than with the party. Which is why young conservatives are drawn to things like the Tea Party rallies/movement. I think the ideology—more than the political structure of the party—is what motivates the youth. But that's not really any different from liberalism. Most youth on the left identify themselves as 'progressives' and part of the 'progressive movement' rather than identifying themselves with the Democratic party apparatus.
  - madair 17y ago
    I understand affiliations, although I'll have to take your word for it about the young republicans, What I was trying to do is bring out the point that in the world of ideas there are libertarian ideas that are separate from the the Libertarian Party, and so when we talk about ideas we don't necessarily need to find an actual affiliation with a particular party. Many people, particularly conservatives, seem to be aligning with libertarian ideals, even if they have no interest at all in the Libertarian party. A political idea never needs a party, it exists as an intellectual construct. Disclaimer, I am not a libertarian, I align most closely with progressives, who don't have a viable party in the United States today, but I appreciate a lot of the work and ideas of conservatism, libertarianism, left-wing labor, and social democrat. Isn't it far more interesting and valuable to talk about the world of ideas: libertarian, progressive, fiscal conservative, social conservative, fiscal liberal, social liberal, social democrat, socialist, lassez faire capitalist, and so on, than about specific parties, or to haggle over whether a person's party affiliation is the Republican Party when in fact it is a libertarian idea that is expressed. Isn't that just letting a party set the boundaries of the debate? The ideas need to be the focus of the debate if we're to accurately discuss the work of an individual, regardless of their nominal party affiliation.
    - jbooth 17y ago
      Well, sure, but personally if I'm dealing with someone who can say with a straight face that Sarah Palin would do a good job as president, I know to discount appropriately -- for that person, tribalism has surpassed ideas or truth as far as what they consider right.

madair 17y ago

I was wondering if someone would call him on the libertarian thing. While the general alignment of the person may be conservative, aren't the ideas still considered libertarian? I've been considering a lot how to adjust use of words to make it clearer when I'm talking about ideas, since after all it's the ideas that matter if ideas are what we're discussing in the moment. Party alignments in non-election debate just muddy whatever the individual ideas are representing with preconceptions and even unrelated concepts, and it's harder to see where individuals cross-align, making negotiations and debates even harder than they already would be.

jbooth 17y ago
Conservatives and "young conservatives" in particular identify extremely strongly with the Republican party -- given that conservatism tends towards "identify with your own" far more than liberalism, this is significant. Libertarians, entirely different set of motives.
- Perceval 17y ago
  I'm not sure that's correct. As far as I can tell, young conservatives identify more closely with 'conservatism' than with the party. Which is why young conservatives are drawn to things like the Tea Party rallies/movement. I think the ideology—more than the political structure of the party—is what motivates the youth. But that's not really any different from liberalism. Most youth on the left identify themselves as 'progressives' and part of the 'progressive movement' rather than identifying themselves with the Democratic party apparatus.
- madair 17y ago
  I understand affiliations, although I'll have to take your word for it about the young republicans, What I was trying to do is bring out the point that in the world of ideas there are libertarian ideas that are separate from the the Libertarian Party, and so when we talk about ideas we don't necessarily need to find an actual affiliation with a particular party. Many people, particularly conservatives, seem to be aligning with libertarian ideals, even if they have no interest at all in the Libertarian party. A political idea never needs a party, it exists as an intellectual construct. Disclaimer, I am not a libertarian, I align most closely with progressives, who don't have a viable party in the United States today, but I appreciate a lot of the work and ideas of conservatism, libertarianism, left-wing labor, and social democrat. Isn't it far more interesting and valuable to talk about the world of ideas: libertarian, progressive, fiscal conservative, social conservative, fiscal liberal, social liberal, social democrat, socialist, lassez faire capitalist, and so on, than about specific parties, or to haggle over whether a person's party affiliation is the Republican Party when in fact it is a libertarian idea that is expressed. Isn't that just letting a party set the boundaries of the debate? The ideas need to be the focus of the debate if we're to accurately discuss the work of an individual, regardless of their nominal party affiliation.
  - jbooth 17y ago
    Well, sure, but personally if I'm dealing with someone who can say with a straight face that Sarah Palin would do a good job as president, I know to discount appropriately -- for that person, tribalism has surpassed ideas or truth as far as what they consider right.