Political Evolution

I don’t usually write about myself, instead typically writing about my perception of the events that make up the world around me. I read a lot of other authors, and notice what may be a common denominator among those I find most interesting to read. That common denominator is an evolving political outlook, usually spanning many years and much experience, and happening so slowly that we, the beneficiaries of that evolution, don’t even notice it’s happened.

The admissions of other authors caused a moment of panic, as I realized I had evolved as well, and could no longer call myself the catch-all I had always gone by.

As a child, I observed my parents’ politics; mother born in coal country and a life-long Democrat, father the product of an east coast working class family and a life-long Republican. They canceled each other’s votes for nearly 50 years. The only time they voted together was when a friend was running for office, and then his political party didn’t matter – he was family – and that always trumped political parties. That’s how my tribe rolled.

I first voted while in the service, and registered as Republican. The only real choices back then were the “R” or the “D,” and I favored the Republican platform that focused on maintaining a strong national defense posture – particularly in the midst of the Cold War – fiscal conservatism, civil rights, and states’ rights among other things. This contrasted with the Democrat platform that focused on civil rights, social welfare, and education. Not being interested in national defense in the middle of the Cold War was a total non-starter for me, so I was Republican. I was more interested, politically, in the things that separated the two major parties than I was in those areas where they agreed.

As I grew older, married, acquired a home, and had children I became more conservative in my outlook, although still not totally weaned from the idealism of youth. My service experience as well as my increased responsibility made some of the things I had considered important earlier in life seem less important and in some cases absolutely foolish.

Social welfare programs, in particular, seemed to be less than productive when I looked at how they were designed and managed. Additionally, I thought the Federal government was foolish to get involved in education, which was and still is a state responsibility. I had evolved from just a Republican to a moderate-right Republican and didn’t even know it.

My family grew older, moved from up north to the south, and my outlook evolved some more. I became more politically active, and finally saw how the sausage was made. I have to agree with many of my fellow authors that politicians as a whole are not the most intelligent group of people we’ve ever met. They’re cunning and crafty in their own way, but usually not the sharpest knife in the drawer. Most profess an interest in making life better for the average person; however, their performance usually indicates they’re actually more interested in reelection than in improving the lot of the working man. My political evolution progressed from moderate-right to conservative Republican.

Even as a conservative there were things happening that just didn’t make sense to me. Small things, probably not even worth the time to think about for most people, but I spent the time and didn’t like the conclusions I came to. It seemed to me – and still does in many cases – that decisions were made by government, we’re talking about laws and proscriptions, that were political and not correct or consistent with other decisions or laws.

The simplest example to me, although certainly not the most important, was the classification of marijuana as a Class 1 drug while beer was only restricted by the age of the purchaser and local laws. Two “entry drugs,” yet one is legal and the other is not. Another seeming inconsistency was that you could be drafted – yes, when I was 18 there was still a draft in place – or enlist in the armed forces, and could, therefore, carry a gun and be sent to fight wars. The same person in civilian life had to be 21 to be considered an adult and in most states had to be 21 to drink a beer.

I was allowed to kill for the government but was limited to 3.2 beer if in the service and no alcohol if a civilian. It just didn’t seem right. Was I an adult or not?

It was then that I realized I wasn’t Republican or Democrat, although the Republican party still was closest to my beliefs. To maximize my ability to effect change I remained there.

I believe the Republican party can be the party for conservative libertarians with a little reorienting of what has become a leader-led party to a member-led party. What I had become was a conservative libertarian, at least according to my definition I was a conservative libertarian, and that’s where I am now.

Down the rabbit hole: my definition of conservative libertarian is someone who combines libertarian beliefs in favor of maximizing individual liberty and minimal government intervention in economic and personal matters, with conservative cultural values and perspectives on social issues.

Some key beliefs I associate with conservative libertarianism include:

1. Supporting free market capitalism, private property rights, and opposing government regulation of the economy beyond what is truly necessary. Determining what is necessary is a decision that must on a case-by-case basis while maintaining consistency with other like policies.

2. Favoring drastically lower taxes and drastically smaller government spending compared to the status quo. Reducing mandatory spending by limiting the duplication of services, the provision of welfare programs that profit a recipient rather than provide a safety net, and vetting in more detail before providing any government support services will be important in reducing the size and cost of government.

3. Opposing government intervention in personal, family and moral issues beyond protecting individual rights. This extends to issues like drug laws, censorship, marriage laws, etc. There is a break-point here where reducing government intervention in personal, family, and moral issues also has a religious component. To clarify this possible conflict, we believe the government should not be involved in these things; however, a religious belief in conflict with any of the personal freedoms the reduction of government involvement allows is personal and should not affect how the government treats the individual. One example of this is gay marriage; the government may allow them, but a religious objection must be honored by the government to protect the rights of those who find gay marriage to be wrong.

4. Skepticism of government social welfare programs and a preference for charity and mutual aid associations. See our response number 2.

5. Prioritizing civil liberties like free speech, gun rights, due process, and property rights derived from classical liberal and conservative traditions. This includes repeal of all laws that limit any of our God-given rights. The removal or repeal of laws that limit any guaranteed right will have the additional benefit, when duplication of provision of services is addressed as in response number 2, of reducing the size of government. This is a result of loss of justification – e.g. what need will there be for the ATF when the laws regulating alcohol, tobacco, and firearms are repealed – and the assignment of surviving functions to agencies specialized to provide the oversight and possible enforcement necessary.

6. Cultural/social conservatism on some issues like opposing abortion, supporting traditional family structures, patriotism, law and order perspectives.

7. And of course enforcing the Constitution and its limitation of the federal government to those powers delegated to it by the states.

Conservative libertarianism is the belief system I support at this stage in my life. I want a very limited economic role for the government combined with fairly conservative cultural leanings on many social issues, and conservative libertarianism fits that bill admirably.

I still believe in the Republican platform, and if they actually practiced what they preach this article would never have been written. They don’t, so it was.

I encourage your comments pro or con. Even though this is an explanation of my individual beliefs, I welcome your agreement that I am right or your explanation as to why you believe I am wrong. Please keep comments civil in any case.

Enjoy this article? You will find more of my work at Jack’s Substack.

Jack Sotallaro

Continuity planning, civilian and military