Archive for the ‘Libertarian Split’ Category

Another Isolationism Debate

Tuesday, June 23rd, 2009

Becky, the Girl in Short Short Talking About Whatever, re-writing the history of conservatism somewhat and reminding me why I am not a Libertarian (warning, her site is occasionally not-quite-work-safe):

Obama is widely condemned as a coward on FOX News, with frequent appearances by Lindsay Graham, Charles Krauthammer and the usual suspects. Neocon giant Paul Wolfowitz was on CNN’s Larry King Show, calling for the president to form an alliance with Moussavi (even though the guy is a socialist thug), American and European college campus hippies are on the march—and not a few of the CNN anchors have pulled out their green St Patrick’s Day ties.

Neoconservatives It’s beginning to seem the only person in Washington, on the president’s side, is Ron Paul. Everyone else is on the Wilsonian warpath to make Iran safe for Democracy.
It would be pretty hypocritical for Barack Obama to get real huffy about the Iranian electoral system.

Repeatedly our country is excited at the outset about helping some resistance fighters— e.g. Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan—but it does not take all that long for the luster to wear off—and before long we are wondering how we could have been so stupid.

One good way to avoid a lot of stupid mistakes is to mind your own business.

It’s so simple—but always hard to do.

So far the president is doing a pretty good job.

Yeah. Like anytime I want a poster boy for minding-yer-own-business, I should make a beeline for 1600 Pennsylvania right now.

Becky usually makes more sense than this…and let’s be honest, she does make some sense here. That’s the intriguing thing about her site. Like most other women who call themselves “feminists,” she is drunk on how-things-should-be and very often fixates on the feminist game of “Hey look at that thing over there help me hate it.” One could argue she’s taking a break from it here, unfortunately at the exact moment in which it would have been most sensible.

But she has a point here that is worthy of engagement. Aren’t both sides of our ideological divide guilty of hypocrisy and inconsistency on the “Mind Your Own Business” front? How, if the iPresident-Replacement-Jesus isn’t showing us The Way, does one avoid that conundrum? That’s the fascinating thing about isolationism debates. Isolationism, being nothing more than not-doing-anything, cannot be reasonably practiced to extremes. As Jimmy Stewart said in that great Libertarian movie Shenandoah, “If we don’t try, then we don’t do; and if we don’t do, then what are we doing here?”

Naturally I blossomed forth with my own wisdom:

It’s a decent argument I’ll admit, or else I can see some decent underpinnings in it. The danger is that you’re arguing for consistency. If you believe in the Government staying out of the lives of its citizens then why not believe in the Government staying out of other governments?

It’s interesting that the Obama apologists are never attacked with this: How come isolationism works when it’s time to defend liberty, but never when the time comes to assault it?

This is how belief in a deity, or lack of belief in a deity, affects how you think about the world. I know you’re a devout Catholic but you’ve missed the boat on this one because whether you’re conscious of it or not, you’re treating liberty the way the secularists treat it: Something people want, like air conditioning, because life is so much sweeter when you have it than when you don’t. Therefore we should all have it, and if we don’t have it we should hold revolutions to get our air conditioning.

Believers in the founding principles of our nation, just don’t see it that way. We see liberty as something that belongs to us not because we’re cool, or it makes us happy, or because those who would deprive us of it are really bad people. Those all apply but none of them represent the primary reason, which is: We are Children of God, and the true purpose of our existence cannot be fulfilled unless we are granted what we were supposed to have upon our Creation.

Once you realize that, you realize as Children of God, we have no meaningful entitlements that don’t apply to other CoG. It then becomes obligatory for us to defend others on this matter, if in no other way, than at least to speak out forcefully. And I would point out that thus far that’s all anyone has done.

Meghan McCain…At it Again

Sunday, April 19th, 2009

She’s trying to play down a feud she had a few days ago…and the best way to do that, in her young ditzy mind, is to warn of an upcoming civil war within “her” party.

Meghan McCain warned a group of gay Republicans Saturday that there was “a war brewing in the Republican Party” – a war between the past and the future.

“Most of the old school Republicans are scared s***less of that future,” she told a gathering of the Log Cabin Republicans, a group of gay and lesbian party members.

The 24-year-old daughter of former GOP presidential candidate John McCain pushed back against critics upset over her comments to CNN that she wanted President Obama to succeed, and played down her recent headline-grabbing feuds with conservative commentators Ann Coulter and Laura Ingraham. “I did not expect my frustration with what I perceive to be overly partisan and divisive Republicans to cause a national incident,” she said.

Meghan McCain“I feel too many Republicans want to cling to past successes…I think we’re seeing a war brewing in the Republican Party,” she said. “But it is not between us and Democrats. It is not between us and liberals. It is between the future and the past…

Whatever your vision on the same-sex-marriage issue — if you are not insane, you are at least open to, and would hopefully recognize, the solution is the recognition of the sovereign authority of the states. Yeah, states-rights. De-stigmatize that, cherish that, embrace that, learn to love it. It’s not a white-supremacist’s battle cry, it is the heritage of our nation.

Because if you want to force another state, two thousand miles from your home, to recognize same-sex marriage…as Meghan McCain does…there is something hideously wrong with you. Forget voting. You shouldn’t be allowed out of the house.

That goes for those of you who want to force another state two thousand miles away to ban it, if the citizens living there don’t want to ban it. You’re a bunch of raging psychopaths too.

This is a phony issue. California just voted on this. I voted “yes,” meaning I didn’t want same-sex marriage to be legal. My side won. This being California, there was a decent chance it would’ve gone the other way — in which case, I would have evaluated how important this issue is to me, decided it really doesn’t matter that much, and opted to stay where I am.

What matters more to me? Things that Meghan McCain doesn’t seem to give two shits about. I want to buy a newspaper — or crack open the web page for a federal agency — and not see words like “program,” “subsidy,” “deficit,” “need,” “demand,” “cuts,” “regulation,” et all…instead, I want to see words like “freedom,” “opportunity” and “liberty.” I’d like to see a better tethering between our nation’s founding vision, and the direction in which it is headed. I’d like to see a better tethering between the people who run that nation, and reality. And I don’t want to see euphemisms like “undocumented immigrant” ever again.

Because the people we elect into office, lately have the power to decide how much those things are discussed; what’s centralized as a “moderate” argument even if it’s silly, what’s marginalized even if it’s just plain common-sense.

Which is another thing I’d like to see fixed.

But Meghan McCain is more concerned about re-defining marriage. Good for her. And now, in that vein, she wishes to re-define the word “Republican.” Well, not in my dictionary, sweetie.

Cross-posted at Right Wing News.

Targeted Wimp-Out

Wednesday, June 25th, 2008
Daisy Duke Golf
I really don’t know what this picture has to do
with the subject under discussion
but it looks pretty good to me

Becky, the Girl in Short Shorts Talking About Whatever, is ticked. She’s ticked at the democrats because the democrats wimped out to President Bush. Like millions of anti-war bloggers and activists, she wanted them to hold firm, not wimp out; she wanted them to hang on to the bitter end. About — wimping out to the terrorists. She wanted those limp flaccid democrats to carry the fight to President Bush, so that they could be victorious and prevail, in the battle to get him to stop carrying the fight to the terrorists, and stop trying to be victorious and stop trying to prevail. She’s upset at them for caving in to him, as he continues to not cave in to the terrorists.

She’s upset about the “wimp out” that took place in the battle to wimp out.

She wants to see more determination and resolve…in the battle to not show any determination or resolve.

She wants more spine shown in the battle to show spinelessness.

Targeted wimping-out.

This is, as I’ve commented a few times over at her blog, what is wrong with libertarianism in 2008. You use that word (capital-L) “Libertarian!” and I think — more freedom. People can do what they choose to do as long as it does not harm others. More authority at the local level and less at the federal level.

The war has badly damaged the Libertarian party. Badly. Too many loud, angry small-l libertarians are insistent on a falsehood — that capital-L Libertarianism is inherently anti-war. Well, it isn’t. Capital-L Libertarianism is about the right to defend yourself; individuals have the right to defend their homes, states have the right to defend themselves from invasion by illegal aliens if the feds aren’t up to the job, and the federal government has the authority and the responsibility to defend the nation. The small-l libertarians insist that “Libertarians” see the Libertarian movement their way, not my way; that there are no Libertarians who recognize true Libertarianism as Libertarianism.

Well, they’re wrong. This is a red-hot issue in the Libertarian movement: When we use that word on ourselves, are we calling ourselves a bunch of deranged Jimmy-Carter peaceniks? Some, like Becky, say yes; some say no.

Becky Does Not Make Sense TodayWhat is really destructive about this, is the method by which these pronouncements are made. Former President Carter’s comments and bullying implications notwithstanding, there is no verbiage in the Constitution or in any treaty, not on any legally binding hunk of paper floating around anywhere, that outlaws preemptive war. When our small-l libertarians call that “illegal,” they mean someone said “That’s just wrong! Can I get an amen here?” and a bunch of other small-l libertarians said “Hell yeah!”

Populism, in other words. The Libertarian movement has been subject to an incursion by anti-war peacenik populists. That is why they are small-l libertarians. Unlike Becky, most of these folks couldn’t give two hoots about the ideals that are really part of capital-L Libertarianism. They couldn’t give a rat’s ass about states’ rights, or the right to home-school, or ratcheting down on federal spending for social programs, or any of the other stuff; they just want to be a bunch of anti-war halfwits.

The foundation of anti-war halfwitism, however, is that if one side is engaged in a war, and it calls a halt to the war, the other side will automatically stop fighting too. That’s why we don’t want these people making important decisions about anything — they don’t understand human nature and they don’t care to understand it. They’re delusional Utopian thinkers who do all their reckoning with reality while high on airplane model glue fumes.

The foundation of this small-l libertarianism that results when classic capital-L Libertarianism mates with populism, is — words like “constitution” and “illegal” are defined by that “Can I Get An Amen Here?” process. Which, in my book, is the direct opposite of capital-L Libertarianism. This is the difference, when you get down to it, between what Ron Paul was pretending to be and what Ron Paul really is.

Their ultimate goal, of course, is to make sure our country wimps out, on everything, and everyone living within it wimps out too. All the time — except when people oppose the small-l libertarianism. Essentially, it is a political movement that insists that nobody, anywhere, at any time, is worth fighting or resisting…except the enemies of that particular political movement.

Targeted wimping-out; targeted standing-up. No real principles involved in any of this. Just a half-assed effort to put forth the appearance.

Sorry, small-l libertarians. If we have a need for a political movement like that, that’s exactly what democrats are for. One of those is enough of a headache, we don’t need two.

Update: Link submitted by Becky’s commenter Mark Wadsworth: Democrats Vow Not To Give Up Hopelessness. Good ol’ Onion.

That’s satire news, for those of you who may not be in the know.

In a press conference on the steps of the Capitol Monday, Congressional Democrats announced that, despite the scandals plaguing the Republican Party and widespread calls for change in Washington, their party will remain true to its hopeless direction.

“We are entirely capable of bungling this opportunity to regain control of the House and Senate and the trust of the American people,” Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) said to scattered applause. “It will take some doing, but we’re in this for the long and pointless haul.”

“We can lose this,” Reid added. “All it takes is a little lack of backbone.”