Pubdate: Sat, 21 Mar 2015
Source: Regina Leader-Post (CN SN)
Copyright: 2015 The Leader-Post Ltd.
Website: http://www.leaderpost.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/361
Author: Chris Selley
Page: D4

THE CONSERVATARIAN COMPROMISE

In his new book, The Conservatarian Manifesto, National Review
contributor Charles C.W. Cooke proposes libertarians and conservatives
combine their best instincts to "re-establish (the GOP) as the party
of liberty" - a party that's "committed to laissez-faire," that's
"tolerant of =C2=85 how others wish to live their lives," and that's abov
e
all committed to local governments running things as their
constituents see fit.

Q Why does America need a "conservatarian" movement?

A There's two reasons. The first is that there is a generational
divide within the Republican party, especially on gay marriage and on
the war on drugs. If it doesn't adapt, it's going to be out of step
with future generations.

Q Many view America's experience with guns as a mark of shame on
conservatives. You argue it's been a triumph.

A Since 1994 we've seen almost 180 million guns sold in the United
States. But the murder rate has dropped 49 per cent. And the general
crime rate with guns has dropped 75 per cent. Now that's not to say
that the U.S. doesn't have more gun crime because it has 350 million
guns. But pretending that there is some hard-and-fast link between the
number and the outcomes is folly. The second point I would make is
that it is the law, and laws matter. It's enumerated within the
constitution, its meaning is clear, and if advocates wish to see a
change then they will need to repeal that law.

Q Pretty much every western country has been stupid about drugs. But
in the United States, to me, it's the most glaring, because liberty is
supposed to be the ideal. And yet we see enormous incarceration rates,
the prison-industrial complex, outrageously militarized police forces
=2E . .

A Conservatives claim to be the true defenders and champions of the
constitution as it was written and amended. And yet on the question of
drugs, they are happy to tolerate all sorts of intrusions upon the
constitution's precepts that they never would otherwise. I think it
puts people off. They look at the conservative offering and say,
"Well, I don't understand how you can talk all the time about liberty
and small government and localism and then support this
monstrosity."

Q On same-sex marriage, a common libertarian position is that
government should get out of the marriage business altogether. That
always struck me as a somewhat elegant solution. You don't agree.

A The problem as I see it, and this is the problem with libertarians
in general, is that it presumes the state has been shrunk to the size
of a pea. The reality is that marriage is inextricable from government
because government is inextricable from our lives. Although I find
this difficult to imagine as a libertarian leaning person, the most
effective argument in favour of gay marriage has been that to refuse
to acknowledge or accept it is some form of animus, and that the state
is refusing its imprimatur. Now if what you want is the imprimatur of
the state, then you're not going to accept the removal of the state
completely from that process.

Q It strikes me that your plan relies above all else on people being
principled, being willing to stick to their democratic beliefs even if
they lead to outcomes they don't like - but as you say in the book,
most people aren't like that at all. How do you overcome that?

A If conservatives were so committed in the abstract to the values
that I'm putting forward, the book would not have been necessary. If
you look at a question like drugs, now more than ever voters in
Colorado and Washington have a reason to question federal power,
because the federal government still has laws on its books that are in
conflict with the will of the voters (on marijuana legalization). The
Baptist in Mississippi and the hipster in Portland, Oregon, have
almost nothing in common, and yet they are expected to live under the
same government. And if we don't want to live in a country that yoyos
ridiculously every four years or eight years, with the makeup of the
national government, some of the powers that are currently being
exercised in Washington, D.C., will need to be returned to the states,
so that those who vehemently disagree with one another can live
locally as they see fit.

- - This interview has been edited and condensed.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Matt