Gerry Nichols tells of his work for a more-libertarian and less social-conservative candidate for the Republican nomination for the Senate in New Hampshire. His column in the National Post reminds me of the difficulties that often ensued when the more-libertarian and more-social-conservative folks formed a shaky coalition in Canada called "The Reform Party".
Once again in the US, it looks as if the social conservatives are tending to dominate and are making life very difficult for those candidates with more libertarian views. Bill Binnie, the candidate for whom Gerry was working, wrote,
To me, if you’re a Republican, it means you stand for the very principles which made America great, principles such as freedom, individual rights and tolerance … Yet elements within my own party have a different vision of what it means to be Republican. They are more about imposing moral values than individualism, more about allowing government to dictate decisions on issues that should be a matter of personal conscience.
I would delighted if more people with views like these (e.g. King Banaian as well) were elected to public office. But as Gerry concludes:
The fact is: Social conservatives have come to dominate the Republican Party and they will simply not tolerate social moderates in their midst. That’s too bad because they are driving away good candidates. In the process, they are making the Republican Party weaker, narrower and less electable.
And let me add that if the social conservatives are driving the libertarians out of the Republican party, I cannot wish them well. I resent the anti-freedom, big-gubmnt views and policies of both major parties in the US, and I worry that we are facing a similar situation in Canada.