limmy-log

An apt summary of the paradox that exists in the USA’s main party of the right. Somehow, it encompasses two conflicting manifestations of political right-ness: libertarianism and authoritarianism. The best way I can square this is that they really consider themselves first and foremost to be the Conservative party, the party of preservation and the maintenance of the status quo. The ideological principles merely follow from that objective, are whichever ones serve that goal.

Paradoxes exist within the Democratic party as well, but ideologically, US Liberalism is more intuitively coherent for me personally. Left of center is my current professed political stance, but again, I really can’t realistically say that that’ll never change.

newyorker:

Comment: The Republicans’ Lost Privacy

And that is what makes Romney and Santorum’s criticism of Griswold so troubling. Over the years the modern Republican Party has reflected both libertarian and authoritarian tendencies. Both survive, in a way. When it comes to taxes and regulation, the libertarian side of the party is ascendant. Even the rhetoric of compassionate conservatism has faded from view. But with regard to civil liberties, the G.O.P. has embraced state power with a vengeance. Whether it’s the rights of wartime detainees, or abortion rights, or the rights of gay people to marry (or to be free from discrimination), contemporary Republican leaders reflect clear moral disapproval. (Even Ron Paul, who is often described as a libertarian, is a fierce opponent of a woman’s right to choose abortion. And Rick Perry recently announced that he’s against a right to abortion even in cases of rape or incest.) Privacy is often described as “the right to be left alone,” but that’s not a value that seems terribly important in the G.O.P. right now.

- In today’s Daily Comment, Jeffrey Toobin writes about what makes Romney and Santorum’s criticism of Griswold v. Connecticut so troubling: http://nyr.kr/xxInUe

Source: newyorker.com