For those interested, here is my debut in the American Conservative — a review of Justin Raimondo’s Reclaiming the American Right.
And Jim, I don’t know who these pro-Palin libertarians are, but I sure ain’t one!! In fact, I was an early detractor.
“Conservatism today is not too ideological or insufficiently traditional. Rather, it is ideologically devoted to the wrong traditions. It sees the U.S. empire, the police state, the Republican Party, and other right-wing symbols as proxies for freedom, as institutions worth more than liberty. It has adopted coercive nationalism and utilitarian collectivism and cast away the traditions of constitutionalism, freedom, and natural law on which bourgeois values depend”.
Well said! Today’s conservatism is simply fascism redefined. Ron Paul’s attempt to bring the conservatives back to where it started was doomed from the get go. However, his attempt opened so many minds that even he was amazed. For the first time in many years I have found people discussing conservatism combined with a belief in Liberty. In todays age that is almost unheard of. A breath of fresh air indeed!
Peace!
What does it mean if you have “bourgeois values”? You said that Lew Rockwell is “a friend of bourgeois values and the Old Right. “
Dear Rachel: It was astute of you to question the meaning of “bourgeois values†when applied to the Lewciferians. If you visit their website (check the blogs, too), you will notice that their particular brand of libertarianism is, while purporting to hold the line on basic positions, is consistently laced with barbs aimed at anyone who does not hold similar, rather boorish views boorish views on a host of issues. In short, they have made the claim that their personal lifestyle preferences are the equivalent of libertarianism. For example, there is an open hatred of anyone who exhibits a responsibly custodial, environmentalist viewpoint – this despite Lew Rockwell’s claim to be a Catholic and the long-understood role of man as the custodian of the earth in that particular version of Christianity. Instead of decrying human-based pollution as trespass (the proper libertarian position), there is a boobish (ergo the Lewciferians’ bourgeois value) preference for maximum resource consumption, waste, and population growth despite the ecological impact that is the result of current anti-market government policies. Check out some of the swill dished out by Karen de Coster encouraging readers to buy and drive the biggest and baddest pieces of autotrash thrown together by Detroit’s failing bailout meisters and thuggish unions—both propped up by government policies. “Hey, as long as it’s not coerced, “ they repeat endlessly, “it’s just fine.†This is correct, but it is nonetheless short-sighted and boorish. Many things are permitted by libertarianism, and all must remain legal, but all activities should not be construed as “encouraged by†or “equal to “libertarianism. By wrapping their cloddish values in the flag of libertarianism, they sabotage the hard work of libertarians who take part in polite society and do not feel compelled to constantly exhibit their adolescent impulses in public.
Similarly, even if you attribute most of the much-questioned claims of “global warming†to variations in solar output, any concern shown regarding the impact of human waste products on people and other animal species will be interpreted as a socialist impulse. The fact is that the Leviathan state has precluded a market-based solution to pollution (the market itself!), but like a dirt-washed Pied Piper followed by a squad of lemmings, the Lewciferians encourage dysfunctional behavior that only makes things worse. While they have correctly warned people (in the past) about skewed market signals leading to housing bubbles and dot-com bubbles (caused by government manipulation), they do not apply the same tools to the false signals sent out by governments when it comes to (1) petroleum overuse, which subsidized by war and interventions in the Middle East; (2) over-breeding, which is subsidized by “family friendly†shifts of the tax burden from breeders to non-breeders, again courtesy of government; and (3) the disposition and use of toxic substances that percolate into ground water and into the air—spreading to everyone. After all, if the cost of U.S. troops stationed in petroleum-producing areas were funneled into energy prices instead of hidden and redistributed in taxes, what would be the result? If fuel prices were two to five times higher and if government did not subsidize breeding through tax incentives and education subsidies, what would the size, shape, and configuration of our cities and entire civilization be – including automobile use? What would Ms. De Coster be driving then?
Similarly, Lewciferians such as Bill Anderson make a fetish of castigating the “evil†Thomas Malthus, who incorrectly predicted (in the 19th century) a food-based limit on population growth (sometimes I think Anderson and the Lewciferians give Dubya a run for the money on overuse of the “e†word). Consequently, the Lewciferians celebrate mushrooming population growth as a sacrament, despite the fact that it is not a libertarian position or a market-based policy in our current statist cesspool. If you are familiar with the normal, downward-sloping population curve of industrial societies, you will understand my point. Currently, Leviathan over-stimulates population growth by removing parental financial and risk-management responsibility from the equation. Consequently, the Lewciferians actually celebrate the result of Leviathan’s intervention in childbearing. How many children would people raise if they had to be fully responsible for everything produced by t heir children? Yet the Lewciferians constantly shriek that there is no limit to population growth. On the contrary, nobody can say what the carrying capacity of earth is. Nobody: not me, not you. To claim otherwise places libertarianism into disrepute.
Rachel, if you make similar investigations into other questionable issue on the Lewciferian sites – usually a lifestyle choice of which the Lewciferians do not approve – you will see my point. They have enshrined their prejudices as a god and have made an idol of it and have bowed down to worship it. To be fair, the Lewciferians do much good work in other areas. Unfortunately, they embarrass the rest of us when they don’t know when to shut up and grow up. Treat them like errant children with great frequency, and you will be able to tolerate them more easily.
Now, why don’t restate that whole long answer without the biased namecalling and snide comments to give yourself some credibility, Lawrence, instead of coming across as a boor yourself?
I think I’ve absorbed some of it. Sorry.
And, BTW, you never answered Rachel’s original question as to what “bourgeois values” actually, are either. All you did was screed off on Rockwell. Try again, and this time ATFQ!
See, Michael, you should have quit while you were ahead. Now you’re adding to the disinformation stream by making up a falsehood. That’s the real problem. Maybe you were distracted by my screed, but I direct you to the following snide comment, which includes the answer (but I won’t expect any mea culpa from you):
“…there is a boobish (ergo the Lewciferians’ bourgeois value) preference for maximum resource consumption, waste, and population growth…”
Michael:
It looks like you’ll have to spell out ATFQ. You’ve apparently lost Lawrence.
Thrift, hard work, family, faith — you know, the cultural values of the right, but not necessarily the statism.
I disagree that LRC is hostile toward other lifestyles. It does defend bourgeois values, whereas many libertarians attack them. But the site demonstrates a tolerance and openness to a wide range of cultures, lifestyles and social situations. Anyone who was familiar with the site. There are thousands of articles at LRC and they display a wide, diverse range of opinion.
“Thrift, hard work, family, faith — you know, the cultural values of the right, but not necessarily the statism”. Replacing statism with personal responsibility that’s what it’s all about. Refusing to be politically correct or take every government sponsored statistict as fact doesn’t make Lew Rockwell or his supporters wrong. Make up your own mind people and stop buying into the myths.
Peace!
“Thrift, hard work, family, faith”–as bourgeois values? As far as the US is concerned, that sounds more like the Mexican and Latin American immigrants.
At best at various times and places the “values” enumerated are those that the bourgeois try to palm off on peasants and the lower classes.
In fact that is exactly the central fraud of what I call “Thatcherism.”
In the United States–surely a joke, especially the “thrift”. The American middle classes, which one supposes qualify as bourgeoisie, are for the most part, up to their eyeballs in debt.
Most of them, it is true, spend a lot of time looking like they work hard, but that is another myth, because so many are incompetent. Too, more than half the US population is employed directly or indirectly by government, of which the highest paid jobs are held by the middle classes.
“Family”? Another joke–the divorce rates are astounding, especially among the middle classes, and children universally neglected.
Rachel Baker asks a good question, and elicits mythologies for an answer.
Breton isolated the essence of the French bourgeois in its utter lack of a poetic justification. Breton, naturally, had much more to work with the French than anything found in the US.
If one had to isolate the singular and overriding characteristic of most of the American middle classes, it would be short and sweet–hypocrisy.
“‘Thrift, hard work, family, faith’–as bourgeois values? As far as the US is concerned, that sounds more like the Mexican and Latin American immigrants.”
Sure, and so what? Immigrants to America are usually among the most dedicated to bourgeois values.
Rachel Baker, Obviously there is more than one definition of bourgeois values. Marx and Hitler used bourgeois to refer to the rich and elite. However, when it comes to Lew Rockwell and in regards to this article I think Anthony Gregory gets it pretty well on. And although this may no longer be the reality for many of us in the US it is still the libertarian ideal. Many true libertarians (most of whom have nothing to do with politics) still believe in bourgeois values as a guidline for thier lives.
Peace!
I enjoyed the article. The history of the Old Right is interesting. I’ll have to buy the book. It is sad labels have such strong emotional ties to them and can be redefined so easily.
I see a problem with the antiwar coalition. Libertarians viciously hate each other. The Cato/Reason crowd dislikes Rothbard and the Paleoconservatives. They viciously attacked Ron Paul because he wasn’t ideologically perfect. They hold their nose at the mention of Paleoconservatives. They helped destroy Ron Paul’s candidacy over a label they identified themselves with (Libertarian). If Libertarians can not overcome simpleminded tribalism then who can? People have been fighting each other since the birth of our species and will continue to do so as long as it thrives. Human beings are simpleminded creatures hence the Palin support. I don’t see human beings coming together and creating a somewhat Libertarian Utopia. In practice there doesn’t appear to be an ideology that successfully deals with human collectivist and libertarian natures at once for the better. People are group oriented but also we want to be left alone but not necessarily leave their neighbors alone.
Dear EEP:
While it is true that there are disagreements among those who call themselves libertarians, the highly touted “dispute” between the Kochtopussy (mommy, I’m so scared) and the Lewciferians is largely invisible to the great mass of voters and had virtually no impact on the success of Ron Paul’s campaign. I would even go so far as to say that theis tiff-in-a-teapot is more of a marketing device for both the neocon beltway libertarians and the Lewciferians to rally their supporters against the other side — a way to convince their respective followers that indeed they are more pure than the other. Did America notice? No. If you’re looking for an easy target for the failure of RP’s campaign to generate more attention, it is true that libertarians have always been ignored by the Big Press, but in this case, I would look to the central campaign staff of RP himself and even to the Lewciferians. Here’s why. RP’s central campaign staff issued the very worst campaign materials and commericials. Note that RP’s radio commericals never once mentioned that he was antiwar. In fact, he was indistinguishable from Mc-Insane in them! Further, these commercials ran only on right-wing neocon radio stations — precluding any hearing from the left. It is clear that RP could easily have doubled his vote totals from the antiwar left by advertising his opposition to the war in non-neocon outlets. Further, RP never appeared on the Air America radio stations or even on Howard Stern’s show — despite repeated requests from both. Again, this precluded any awareness of his anti-war stance from the antiwar left. So RP’s central campaign staff (which consisted of borderline neocon Republicans who were ashamed of RP’s antiwar message) was responsible for censoring their own candidate. It was only the decentralized volunteers who raised the big bucks and got the word out.
Just as dangerous in its effect as the central campaign’s failure was impact of the silly “cone of silence” imposed by the Lewciferians and their friends at fff.org regarding any criticism of RP’s platform or communications. Instead of providing the needed friendly critique of the centralized RP staff’s flawed communications (and the right-wing-only appeal on so many issues), the Lewciferians and fff crowd were diligent in keeping any criticism of RP off of their web sites. Silence. Silence. And more enforced silence. It was like the old “Get Smart” series where the cone of silence descended and nobody heard or did anything to fix a problem that could not be discussed. So RP was never given the necessary feedback he needed to fix his flawed campaign. And the Paulunteers could only do so much, not having access to the millions of dollars that they themselves raised without the central staff. They could only watch as the central campaign mis-spent it. So the Lewciferians bear a great deal of guilt for cutting in half (at least!) Ron Paul’s vote and the impact he could have had. This is one of the dirty secrets of the Lewciferians, and they try to keep it bottled up completely. The RP campaign debacle and the horrid contribution of the Lewciferians is analyzed in detail in a two-part postmortem hosted here (http://www.strike-the-root.com/81/ludlow/ludlow4.html) and here (http://www.strike-the-root.com/81/ludlow/ludlow5.html). So you might want to consider that once again, the libertarians have shot themselves in the feet, and they are keeping it out of the light.
I think the war was over fear on how vulnerable libertarianism is to be redefined into something that would be seen as negative, making it even more obscure.
I agree with the argument in the links that the Ron Paul campaign was mostly preaching to the choir. Yet I don’t think the leftist would have jumped in bed with him. Leftist writings seem to make libertarians out to be uncaring corporatist. I don’t think Ron Paul articulated a vision that explained and dealt with their domestic concerns.
I think people get too wrapped up in their tribal identifications. They read who they agree with as Lawrence Wilkerson pointed in his recent interview with Scott Horton. They talk at each other rather than discuss problems. The Libertarians, Paleoconservatives, and the antiwar left are going to have to get together to talk about domestic policy and leave the ad hominems and preconceived assumptions at home.
I’m not trying to cause problems here. I’m just trying to point to the elephant in the room because it needs to be recognized and studied for their to be any challenge to the War Party from my point of view. I think Andrew Bacevich gets into that with his interview with Bill Moyers. Americans need to articulate a new ideal of freedom and address our mounting domestic problems. I think he is right that American imperial policy is tied to American domestic dysfunction.
Hi, Eep: Those are valid points — and it’s too true that the various factions speak only to each other. My wife and I are the only libertarians that actually attend the anti-war marches in our area, and we’ve been greeted with suspicion. Of course, LP members are completely absent and are now completely beside the point. As you say, there’s a bit of the horse-blinders among the various groups. Sometimes I despair about this and wonder if anyone — other than a very few — ever learn anything new. To acquire new knowledge and change one’s mindset is an act of psychological make-over. Real meaningful change is very threatening because in the minds of most people, it means “disowning” oneself. When you pinpoint fear as major factor, I have to agree, and it is fear that one may be wrong about something (especially if we overidentify with it) that is the most fearsome thing. People really have to get over the idea that they will have to grow and evolve over a lifetime and that they don’t have to hold onto views they adopted when they were 18 (or even earlier for some troglodytes) for their entire lifetime.
Dear EEP:
I think that you are overestimating the impact of the tiff-in-a-teapot of the beltway Kochtopussy and the Lewciferians. The great mass of voters is blissfully unaware of their disagreement, and I would even go so far as to say that it is more of an inside marketing tool that each side uses to stir up its own supporters against the other side – kind of like the argument over which end of the egg to open first in Gulliver’s Travels.
If you are looking for an explanation of why Ron Paul’s campaign was such a failure, I would first look toward the usual big-media exclusion of non-establishment messages. But if you want to take it to a deeper level, I believe that Ron Paul could easily have doubled or quadrupled his vote if there had been an appeal to the antiwar left. Why didn’t this happen? Because the centralized Ron Paul campaign staff aimed its message completely at the right-wing Republicans and completely excluded RP’s antiwar message from its radio commercials. The only antiwar message came from RP himself at the Republican debates and from the decentralized volunteers whom the central staff couldn’t and didn’t control – the same people who raised the millions of dollars that the centralized RP campaign staff misspent on commercials that never once mentioned that the war was wrong or evil. Instead of having RP appear on the Air American shows or on the Howard Stern show (where he was requested over and over), the central staff of neocon-like automatons in RP’s campaign bought time only on right-wing stations and succeeded in making RP look exactly like Mc-Insane. They were so effective in squelching the RP message that in New Hampshire, McCain was viewed as the antiwar candidate. The antiwar left – where most of the antiwar votes were ready – rarely heard of RP, and the central campaign is responsible. Let’s face it, only a tiny minority of Republican voters (and even fewer Democratic voters) watched the Republican debates and had a chance to see RP speak on these issues.
Even worse, assisting the central campaign in keeping the antiwar message of RP from getting out were the Lewciferians and the people at fff.org. Both of these organizations enforced censorship of any criticisms about the conduct of the RP campaign. So instead of getting the much-needed feedback required to re-shape the RP message, Ron was isolated from any critique from his most astute supporters. It was like the silly old “Get Smart†series, where the “cone of silence†descended and forbid any discussion. It would have been funny if it had not been so important. As a result, RP’s central campaign made RP look like McCain, and the vote totals for RP were cut down to at least half of their potential. As a result, RP’s influence on both the war policy and today’s debate about monetary policy were minimized. With friends like the Lewciferians and fff.org, Ron Paul doesn’t need any enemies among the Kochtopussy bunch. In essence, he was excluded from reaching his most fertile audience – the antiwar left – by his own people and their enforcers among the Lewciferians. Censorship worked – but for RP’s enemies. This horribly flawed policy has been detailed extensively both here (http://www.strike-the-root.com/81/ludlow/ludlow4.html) and here (http://www.strike-the-root.com/81/ludlow/ludlow5.html). The Lewciferians need to ‘fess up to their role in undermining RP’s campaign and his ability to reach those who do not read (and are entirely unaware of) their web sites.
I think that you are overestimating the impact of the tiff-in-a-teapot of the beltway Kochtopussy and the Lewciferians. The great mass of voters is blissfully unaware of their disagreement, and I would even go so far as to say that it is more of an inside marketing tool that each side uses to stir up its own supporters against the other side – kind of like the argument over which end of the egg to open first in Gulliver’s Travels.
Eep: Further, if you are looking for an explanation of why Ron Paul’s campaign was such a failure, I would first look toward the usual big-media exclusion of non-establishment messages. But if you want to take it to a deeper level, I believe that Ron Paul could easily have doubled or quadrupled his vote if there had been an appeal to the antiwar left. Why didn’t this happen? Because the centralized Ron Paul campaign staff aimed its message completely at the right-wing Republicans and completely excluded RP’s antiwar message from its radio commercials. The only antiwar message came from RP himself at the Republican debates and from the decentralized volunteers whom the central staff couldn’t and didn’t control – the same people who raised the millions of dollars that the centralized RP campaign staff misspent on commercials that never once mentioned that the war was wrong or evil. Instead of having RP appear on the Air American shows or on the Howard Stern show (where he was requested over and over), the central staff of neocon-like automatons in RP’s campaign bought time only on right-wing stations and succeeded in making RP look exactly like Mc-Insane. They were so effective in squelching the RP message that in New Hampshire, McCain was viewed as the antiwar candidate. The antiwar left – where most of the antiwar votes were ready – rarely heard of RP, and the central campaign is responsible. Let’s face it, only a tiny minority of Republican voters (and even fewer Democratic voters) watched the Republican debates and had a chance to see RP speak on these issues.
Even worse than the other points raised by Lawrence is the following point. Assisting the central campaign in keeping the antiwar message of RP from getting out were the Lew Rockwell crowd and fff.org. Both of these organizations enforced censorship of criticisms about the conduct of the RP campaign — and that’s wrong. So instead of getting the much-needed feedback required to re-shape the RP message, Ron was isolated from any critique from his most astute supporters. It was like the silly old “Get Smart†series, where the “cone of silence†descended and forbid any discussion. It would have been funny if it had not been so important. As a result, RP’s central campaign made RP look like McCain, and the vote totals for RP were cut down to at least half of their potential. As a result, RP’s influence on both the war policy and today’s debate about monetary policy were minimized. With friends like the Lew Rockwell and fff.org, Ron Paul doesn’t need any enemies among the beltway bunch. In essence, he was excluded from reaching his most fertile audience – the antiwar left – by his own people and their enforcers among the Rockwell bunch. Censorship worked – but this time on behalf of RP’s enemies. This horribly flawed policy has been detailed extensively both here (http://www.strike-the-root.com/81/ludlow/ludlow4.html) and here (http://www.strike-the-root.com/81/ludlow/ludlow5.html). The Rockwell bunch needs to ‘fess up to their role in undermining RP’s campaign and his ability to reach those who do not read (and are entirely unaware of) their web sites.
FFF and LRC kept Ron Paul from getting out his antiwar message? You got to be kidding me! LRC has prominently run Ron Paul’s antiwar columns for years, and at the peak of the campaign was certainly emphasizing Ron’s broad-based appeal, including on the left, especially for his antiwar position. FFF hosted Ron Paul two years in a row, from the beginning to the end of his campaign, to discuss his noninterventionist foreign policy.
Wow, I’ve heard some strange accusations, but this one is very bizarre. This article
http://www.strike-the-root.com/81/ludlow/ludlow5.html
says,
“In contrast, too many right-wing populists, such as the Lewciferians, pretend that opposition to the drug war is the concern of cosmopolitan, self-indulgent wastrels who celebrate depravity.”
It then links to this — http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/2008_04.html — which is filled with hardcore critiques of the drug war. LRC is for total drug freedom and legalization. I don’t know what Ludlow is getting at here.
Shame on you, Anthony, for deliberately misinterpreting my message in a public place. Bow down before the one you serve; you’re going to get what you deserve.
In case anyone doesn’t check for themselves, the Rockwell link cited by Anthony contains a comment by DiLorenzo again castigating the lifestyles of those at Reason who discuss drug legalization. The point is that Rockwell and company spend such an inordinate amount of time criticizing the lifestyles of others that they appear to be opposed to drug legalization despite all of their protestations to the contrary. It’s the problem with their communications and — at times — RP’s. They are too distracted by their hatred of Reason and the Cato bunch to stop mixing their messages. And then they end up with nonsense such as DiLorenzo supporting that fraud, Murray Sabrin, who gambled his campaign money away. And Sabrin, by the way, has a long history of betraying libertarian movements. But that would require research into his past.
Sorry about the duplication. The system was balking at posts, and I even had a friend try to post.
It’s a major glitch in the system. I have done it myself a few times. As for Ron Paul being a major failure, I don’t see it that way. I think he did much better than expected.
Peace!