Reaching Out to the Right on Peace at LPAC

Angela Keaton, October 10, 2011

In September, I was fortunate enough to be invited to Campaign for Liberty’s Liberty Political Action Conference. In attendance were many right learning people who are new to libertarians ideas, particularly anti-intervention. As part of Come Home America, I am learning how to speak to conservatives about peace.

Part 1

Part 2




6 Responses to “Reaching Out to the Right on Peace at LPAC”

  1. Correction: It's the Liberty Political Action Committee.

  2. Fixed!

  3. I hear you Angela, and thanks for your excellent work! You are an awesome voice, and I agree with you about so many things!

    I personally think it's healthy for multiple "antiwar" and/or "peace" movements to be out there and active at the same time. Other "peace" movements (to be clear: I'm in 100% agreement with your specific comment) IMHO may not necessarily be disingenuous (which you obviously didn't suggest to begin with)…they may just have a fundamental different premise(s) of how the shared objectionable phenomenon manifests itself…which means something, and is understandable and effectively communicated, to other people who are of their like minds–which is not necessarily insignificant in a "democracy" (even if the fundamental premise and logic is flawed).

    I think most (sane) people do not like/want war. Hermann Goering allegedly crudely made a fine point about this while in captivity during the Nuremburg trials, and even allegedly went so far as to claim this was a ‘given’ and "understood".

  4. The ‘other side’ (whatever you want to call them) has clearly, from my perspective, infiltrated both political parties of our National 2 Party system (which is part of why we’re currently in the mess we’re in today).

    I don’t see a lot of “marches” or “protests” advocating waging unnecessary war; yet it seems to happen anyway with alarming frequency.

    I also want to point out that Mr. Obama didn’t just make a speech in 2007, he also ‘allegedly’ made one in 2002 (and most likely many more) where he allegedly denounced the possible invasion of Iraq as a “stupid war”. Considering the context, and the time, that would put him into a similar camp as Ron Paul…although not entirely… What is on record is an interview where he explicitly said (in 2002—before the Iraq invasion) he would have voted against the ‘Iraq Resolution’ (which only 21 Senate Democrats voted against at the time—one ‘Yeh’ vote being Hillary Clinton—his opponent during the primary). http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sXzmXy226po&fe

  5. This was not necessarily politically advantageous at the time (depending on how you look at it and your perspective…which is a separate issue), but it does indicate that there are no assurances that what someone (anyone) says while they are on the campaign trail are genuine, much less come to fruition if and when they are actually in power. The ‘other side’ seems to understand this.

    Popular support is always helpful and important. Even so, I think it’s really already there for all intents and purposes. I think the ‘other side’ has figured this out… That maybe partially explain why even posing the “question” of involving forces in Libya to Congress—beforehand that is (meaning before they technically voted against it…albeit, continuing to fund it)—was not even asked.

    Since the answer was known, there was no reason, nor was it wise, to ask in the first place. The agenda ‘needed’ to go forward (for whatever crazy reason) regardless of possible lack of ‘popular’ support…

  6. Great talk, Angela. I hope a less confrontational approach to challenging the dogma embraced by so many "normal" people will change a few minds on both the left and right. Keep up the good work!