Jim DeMint: Why Republicans Must Become More Libertarian

"The new debate in the Republican party needs to be between conservatives and libertarians," says Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.). "A lot of the libertarian ideas that Ron Paul is talking about...should not be alien to any Republican."

Yet right after the 2010 midterm elections, the influential Tea Party favorite proclaimed that "you can't be a fiscal conservative and not be a social conservative," a comment that was widely viewed as a slap at libertarians. And South Carolina's junior senator is also a staunch pro-lifer, has favored a constitutional ban on flag burning, and is on the record saying that gays shouldn't be allowed to teach at public schools.

More recently, DeMint has been leaning libertarian. His new book, Now or Never: Saving America from Economic Collapse, is a warning to the nation that we need radical spending cuts (including putting defense spending on the table) or else face economic oblivion. And he was instrumental in getting Tea Party Republicans elected in 2010, including the most libertarian member of the caucus, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), who also wrote the foreword to DeMint's book.

Reason's Nick Gillespie and Matt Welch sat down with DeMint for a wide-ranging discussion about fiscal vs. social conservatism, cutting spending, the GOP presidential nomination, whether the Tea Party still matters, and much more.

Approximately 29 minutes.

Shot by Meredith Bragg and Jim Epstein; edited by Epstein.

Go to http://Reason.tv for downloadable versions and subscribe to Reason.tv's YouTube Channel to receive automatic notification when new material goes live.

• Category

  News & Politics

[FreedomsReigning]

A debate between conservatives and Libertarians?

Libertarians are conservatives.

This is a debate between Libertarians and Neocons, people who want conservatism to die. They're Socialists who want top down authoritarianism; Fascists.

[RustyDaleShackleford]

Ron Paul would have beaten Obama.

[Kenaniah Mahendra Shivram Wesley]

Jim DeMint 2016

[toughcookie48]

So true

[DrCruel]

Libertarians are liberals. So are most conservatives.

Americans have been radical liberals since the founding Fathers. It's modern "liberal" socialists that want to bring aristocracy and the rule of kings back.

[rB777ftw]

I doubt it. All the neocons would have sided with Obama...

[homer422]

Isn't this what's known as "re-branding"

[ThirdPerspectiveShow]

As long as you are amending it, it is "living" but the "living" argument tends to come from people who don't want to amend it. They would rather re-interpret it as necessary. That is the scariest thing because who is re-interpreting it? The Federal Government. Those that were intentional constrained by that document. That document does not "give" us our rights. It guarantees them. We are born with them. That is what we have to remember.

[arkanoiddude]

Just because there are historical connections does not mean that the Constitution was based on the Bible. There are also elements of the Magna Carta in the US Constitution, but it is clearly a different document with MUCH different intentions. Not only is the US Constitution a decidedly secular document, but it can also be considered a "living" document, able to be amended and/or modernized.

[tgoyer]

The fact that you don't know it's "Ayn Rand" is all we need to know.

[tgoyer]

You do know that the Constitution was largely based on English Common Law who's core precepts were constructed out of the Protestant Reformation, right?

[PRINCECOUNTYBEATS]

the neo confederates are the worst!