When left to the culture, more often than not, the culture will decide if someone might have gone too far, and needs to be replaced—or at least that tends to be the reality for the GOP and less lefty-leaning organizations, parties, and groups;
I recently received a thoughtful message from a reader in Kentucky who expressed concerns about what she perceived as libertarian infiltration of conservative politics. Her questions about libertarian principles and how they differ from traditional conservatism deserve careful consideration, as they touch upon important distinctions in political philosophy that affect our national discourse today.
As a Christian and a constitutionalist, my first thoughts typically run along what is in line with my Faith and the founding document that established our system of governance. In Jeremiah, the Lord reminds us that the heart is wicked—meaning that if we are to rely only on our feelings and emotions, they will lead us astray. We also need to reason, using logic, pragmatism, morality, our ability to analyze deeper than what is on the surface, and so on and so forth. Scripture also reminds us to avoid extremes. It teaches, often, moderation. So, when I look at issues, rather than get into the trap of binary thinking where it must be one thing or the other, I consider that there may be degrees of variance in between. This is not to say there should not be absolutes regarding everything. There are times to recognize absolutes, and times to recognize that the answer may reside in something many of us call the gray area.
I have a friend of mine who tells me all the time that he is a “small l” libertarian. His point is that he adheres to much of the libertarian philosophy, or perhaps some of them, but he is not necessarily in line with the “Big L” libertarian position, which would fit the political party’s platform. And we must recognize this as a crucial distinction. There is definitely a need to distinguish between libertarianism as a political philosophy and the Libertarian Party as a political organization. Many Americans embrace libertarian principles without formally joining the party. I believe I align with many libertarian principles on some issues, and, to be honest, as I’ve watched politics, philosophical libertarianism has gained significant influence in recent decades.
Libertarianism fundamentally emphasizes individual liberty and limited government intervention in both personal and economic matters. At its core is the non-aggression principle, which holds that initiating force against others is inherently illegitimate. This principle shapes libertarian views on everything from taxation to foreign policy.
The Libertarian Party, established in 1971, translates these philosophical principles into specific policy positions. However, many politicians who incorporate libertarian ideas, such as Rand Paul and Thomas Massie, operate within the Republican Party rather than as third-party candidates.
Libertarians and traditional conservatives share common ground in their desire for limited government and constitutional constraints on federal power. Both generally support free markets, property rights, and individual responsibility.
However, significant differences emerge in their approach to government’s role in society:
Foreign Policy: Libertarians typically advocate non-interventionism based on the non-aggression principle. They oppose military engagements unless directly defending against aggression. This contrasts with a more traditional conservative view that recognizes the necessity of strategic international engagement and occasional military action to address genuine threats. As George Washington wisely cautioned against foreign entanglements, he also understood that a world with hostile regimes sometimes requires difficult choices.
Social Issues: Here lies perhaps the greatest divergence. While conservatives often support laws reflecting traditional moral values, libertarians generally believe such matters should be left to individual conscience rather than government regulation. This explains libertarian support for drug decriminalization and marriage issues, positions that concern many conservatives.
Immigration: Most libertarians favor more open immigration policies based on free market principles, while conservatives tend to emphasize border security and controlled immigration.
As a constitutional originalist, I believe the federal government’s powers are properly limited to those enumerated in the Constitution. The Tenth Amendment reserves all other powers to the states or the people. This framework allows for local solutions to local problems while maintaining national standards for issues truly requiring federal attention.
James Madison explained in Federalist #45 that the powers delegated to the federal government are “few and defined” while those remaining with the states are “numerous and indefinite.”
This constitutional balance doesn’t mean states should become tyrannical; Article IV, Section 4 requires them to maintain republican forms of government. But it does answer the question about issues like abortion, marriage, or drug criminalization—those issues ultimately belong to the states to decide for themselves. None of those issues are any of the federal government’s business.
The libertarian tendency is to push limited government principles further than constitutional parameters allow for, which can create tension. For instance, while I might question whether federal regulation of aviation properly falls under the Commerce Clause, my response isn’t to eliminate all regulation, but to either clarify constitutional authority through amendment or return such powers to the states.
Regarding libertarian positions that trouble many conservatives:
“No Borders”: Most libertarians don’t advocate completely open borders, but rather emphasize property rights and voluntary association. They support immigration reform, but recognize some border security as legitimate.
Drug Policy: Libertarian opposition to drug prohibition stems from viewing substance use as a personal choice rather than a matter for criminal prosecution, not from promoting drug use itself.
Social Issues: Libertarian support for same-sex marriage and other social freedoms doesn’t necessarily reflect approval of these choices, but rather a belief that government shouldn’t regulate personal relationships. One who believes in the presence of a national government with centralized power might argue that the laws regarding such issues belong to the federal government. A constitutionalist like myself will argue that those issues belong to the states. Generally, libertarians will argue there should be no laws whatsoever regarding those issues at the federal or the state level.
The tension between libertarian and conservative approaches reflects broader questions about America’s future. Should we prioritize individual autonomy above all else, or should we preserve institutions and traditions that have sustained our civilization? And if there are people who hold what might be considered “extreme views” on these issues, should the GOP consider jettisoning those individuals from the political party? Regarding that last question, two things come to mind— how quickly progressives cancel anyone who is not purely 100% in line with their narrative, and how Ronald Reagan famously stated, “The person who agrees with you 80 percent of the time is a friend and an ally, not a 20 percent traitor.”
This quote reflects Reagan’s pragmatic approach to politics and his willingness to build coalitions with those who might not agree with him on every issue. It encapsulates his belief that political progress often requires working with people who share most of your views, even if there are some areas of disagreement. It might be a lesson for us to consider when, as conservatives or constitutionalists, we operate with libertarians in our midst.
Reagan was known for his ability to unite different factions within the conservative movement, and this quote illustrates his philosophy that political alliances should be based on common ground rather than demanding ideological purity. This approach was particularly evident in his ability to bring together traditional conservatives, libertarians, and former Democrats into what became known as the “Reagan coalition.”
This quote is often cited in discussions about political strategy and coalition-building, particularly in conservative circles where there’s ongoing debate about how broadly the movement should define itself.
So, when it comes to libertarian-minded Republicans like Rand Paul and Thomas Massie, and how to work with them, the answer may lie somewhere between the extremes. We can respect individual liberty while recognizing that certain moral standards and social structures benefit society. We can limit government power while acknowledging that some regulations protect rather than threaten freedom—and then take into consideration who should be legislating regarding those issues: the federal government, the states, or local jurisdictions.
For those concerned about politicians like Rand Paul and Thomas Massie, it’s worth noting that they don’t consistently adhere to libertarian positions, but incorporate libertarian elements into a broader conservative framework. Their libertarian-leaning positions on civil liberties and government spending coexist with more conservative views on other issues.
Understanding libertarianism’s appeal while recognizing its limitations helps us navigate today’s political landscape. We can appreciate libertarians’ important contributions to discussions about government overreach without adopting their more extreme positions.
As we debate these issues, let’s remember that constitutional governance requires balancing competing values, liberty and order, individual rights and communal responsibilities, local autonomy and national security. This balance, not ideological purity, should guide our political judgments.
With that said, as often is the case, when a person with views outside the grand scheme, or outside what is acceptable to the culture, deviates too far from where they need to be, their seat in government may be shorter-lived than they might expect. In some cases, there may even be more issues and complexities beneath the surface than most Americans can see—but the local voters are well aware of these things. This is why the republican form of government contains components that ensures local voices have a voice over a nationalized democracy, and that is an important part of what our republic is all about. Case in point, Thomas Massie’s loss in Kentucky during this year’s Republican Primary. When left to the culture, more often than not, the culture will decide if someone might have gone too far, and needs to be replaced—or at least that tends to be the reality for the GOP and less lefty-leaning organizations, parties, and groups.
Read next: Senator Rand Paul just exposed ex-CDC Director Susan Monarez
Email Us | Reader Friendly | Comments
Douglas V. Gibbs of Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary, has been featured on “Hannity” and “Fox and Friends” on Fox News Channel, and other television shows and networks. Doug is a Radio Host on KMET 1490-AM on Saturdays with his Constitution Radio program, as well as a longtime podcaster, conservative political activist, writer and commentator. Doug can be reached at douglasvgibbs [at] yahoo.com or constitutionspeaker [at] yahoo.com.
