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