In this article about the Values Voters Summit (‘values’, of course, being relative since this conference is really about fundamentalist religious ‘values’, not human values, definitely not my values) the religiously-motivated speakers aren’t quite sure whether they can get along with the libertarians or not. Of course if the so-called social conservatives are ever going to displace the plutocrats as the ruling elite of the Repugs they’re going to need all the allies they can get. But libertarian thought is highly incompatible with theocracy that Santorum and Perkins want.
Libertarians end up opposed to almost every line of thought there is, both hostile to religion and hostile to progressivism, hostile to anything that puts group over individual. Over the FreeThoughtBlogs there is a huge war going on over a split that some wish to mandate that atheism also include militant feminism which many, but especially the libertarians, reject, because atheism is merely the rejection of theism and any religious belief. This idea, by itself, does not inevitably imply any social dogma. The public can remain calm because this is a divisive schism between at most 5% of the public, but the wingnuts compose too large a group to merely be ignored.
Libertarians hate anything related to managing the economy because they live in a fantasy Ayn Rand fantasy world where maximizing greed will solve all economic issues. They live in another fantasy that any rules or structure imposed by government imposes on individual freedom and only a completely lawless society should exist (we’ve seen how well anarchy works in places like Somalia). They would certainly reject religion sticking its nose in our bedrooms as Santorum and Perkins wish to do. So other than a hatred of government there is little they share with the religinuts.
OTOH, the religious have no clue what the First Amendment means. They believe that “freedom of religion” implies religion must dominate life and they can tell everyone else what they must believe, glibly skipping over the no “establishment” of religion. Their values include submission of women to a patriarchal society that controls women’s bodies (Santorum would approve of burqas). They believe “family” means as many children as biologically possible, all hidden from the real world, especially science, in a bubble of ignorance and total acceptance of bronze age ideas. Government’s only role is to enforce their religion on everyone else, not just in the U.S., but throughout the world. Obviously the libertarian ideals of personal freedom and rational thought are utterly incompatible with their religious dogma.
So is it just a marriage of convenience, band together all the wingnuts to take over, destroy a functioning government, and then like Afghanistan or Somalia fight it out in streets between themselves for dominion over the earth. What a pleasant vision that is!
What is an interesting question to ask (that I can’t even begin to answer since I don’t know how to think irrationally) is why do either of these factions have more than a tiny fraction of support in the population? But the scary part is that they do. Fundamentalism has destroyed all ecumenical forms of religion instead insisting on absolute dogma. Libertarianism, to the extent it has infected the Repugs, threatens to destroy the entire economy. So that means the rest of us have to hope the plutocrats continue to run the Repug party and isn’t that a pretty sight when tyranny of the rich is the best we can hope for for half the country.
So let’s hope this feud goes on and gets worse. Clearly the defeat of Mittwit is going to accelerate the civil war in the Repug party. All sides will claim that more purist extremism would have been the ticket to prevail. I almost wish Santorum were the nominee. While his election would be the worst case imaginable and therefore a huge risk, I rather expect he would have flamed out as he proceeded to in fact not conceal and waffle (as Mittens does) but proudly proclaim his totalitarian ideas and maybe the public would finally get its fill of the religious right.
Interesting in the U.S. many call for “moderate” muslims to take control back from the extremists; well, I’d like to see the same thing here, that somehow ecumenical religion that promotes tolerance in a secular world has to push the extremists back into their caves, but that’s not going to happen. So will the U.S. have to go through the bloodbaths that plagued England for so long after the split Henry VIII triggered? How many witch hunts and burnings? How many thumbscrews and racks? Religion is a disease that threatens to destroy humanity, but we continue to tolerate it, out of respect for the law, which of course the religious would ignore as they view “law” as subordinate to their delusional sense of god’s word.
So feud on wingnuts.
p.s. In this article Santorum rants on and says:
We will never have the elite smart people on our side, …
Well, you’re right on one thing, Rick.