A couple of articles by Jim Manzi at the NRO that warrant reading. They’re chiefly on where the paths of Libertarians and Conservatives should cross and why they should not so much time bickering back and forth over “Social Conservatism” vs. “Fiscal Conservatism.”
The first article, and most recent is on the Christian Right’s approach to gay marriage, where he suggests that a better approach to the issue from the “against” side would most definitely be a renewed call for “federalism” as opposed to a Constitutional Amendment.
The second article (written a couple months back) is a general exposition of that concept, or more generally the concept of subsidiarity, which is the principal that nothing should be done by a more complex or larger organization which can be just as easily and efficiently done by a smaller or simpler organization. In the case of federalism, that means if issues can be as competently or more competently handled at the State or local level, than it should be.
Although I agree with Mr. Manzi wholeheartedly, I can’t stress enough how hard of a concept it is for the “Big L” Libertarian movement to see eye-to-eye, even on this issue, with the “Big C” Christian movement.
For an even BETTER idea of how hard that is, you need look no further than the Libertarian and Constitution Parties (www.lp.org and www.constitutionparty.org respectively). Both organizations have excellent platforms, 96.3 percent of which is virtually identical, but they disagree on one minor thing:
Religion and Morality. The Libertarian party literally has NO position on morality other than that the Government (any Government) should not regulate it, and its position on Freedom of Religion has more to do with taxes than with religion (shocking). Meanwhile the Constitution Party’s first words in its preamble are: “The Constitution Party gratefully acknowledges the blessing of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ as Creator, Preserver and Ruler of the Universe and of these United States.”
And since a LARGE percentage of the U.S. population bases a good chunk of its life, liberty, and personal interaction, on moral principles, for two “right-wing” political movement to either a) not acknowledge the need for such nonsense, or b) only accept one version of it, means that subsidiarity may not be the easiest approach in and of itself. First there needs to be some common ground one the role, definition, and influence of our public officials (and each other) in the realm of religion and morality.