The Antiwar Right's Bent View of the World

FrontPageMagazine.com ^ | 12/16/04 | Lawrence Auster

[Cincinatus]

Well, this should get the paleos riled up! Shall I make the popcorn?

[A Jovial Cad]

LOL...pop enough for two. This will turn into a very interesting thread if the paleos rise to the bait.

[Remember_Salamis]

I come across this anti-war right/libertarian garbage when I'm reading articles at the Von Mises Institute. On economic issues, I'm a strict libertarian, but I separate it from social/foreign policy issues.

I think the real problem here is that the Old Right, which includes most right-wing libertarians, is totally lost on foreign policy. They should follow the voice in their forest, the Ayn Rand Institute (ARI). The ultra-libertarian think-tank, modeled after the great one herself, has an interesting take on the War on Terror.

just like the rest of the anti-war right, ARI claims that the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were mistakes. But ARI claims thet they were mistakes DID NOT GO FAR ENOUGH: ARI claims that we should have immediately leveled Tehran the epicenter of global terrorism.

[shibumi]

Although I am a fan of Rand, I do not read the publications of the ARI. Interestingly enough, when asked over the last few months for my take on the Middle East War(s) over the last few months I have usually replied that I thought we made one mistake: We used the wrong bomb.

[Jaysun]

This is a splendid post, thanks. I'll comment on some specifics as soon as I stop shaking my head.

[Angry Republican]

ping

[Remember_Salamis]

Isn't the anti-war right just leftover anti-Federalists???

We all thought they went extinct during the War of 1812, but I guess we were wrong...

[wotan]

LOL...pop enough for two. This will turn into a very interesting thread if the paleos rise to the bait.

What would be the point of rising to the bait, when we are likely to be suspended if we say anything really incisive that disagrees with the general mentality here on Unfree Republic?

[Commie Basher]

They should follow the voice in their forest, the Ayn Rand Institute (ARI). The ultra-libertarian think-tank, modeled after the great one herself,

Rand was never a libertarian. Rand hated libertarians. Rand believed (foolishly) that libertarians had plagiarized her ideas, and that they were "a random collection of hippies of the right."

ARI claims that the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were mistakes. But ARI claims thet they were mistakes DID NOT GO FAR ENOUGH: ARI claims that we should have immediately leveled Tehran the epicenter of global terrorism.

ARI also equated Bush's Christian fundamentalist support with Muslim fundamentalism. Furthermore, Piekoff endosed Kerry because Piekoff thought Bush was too religious.

Yes, the ARI would like to purge the world of Islam, because they see it as mindless mysticism. But the ARI would also like to purge the world of Christianity, for the same reason.

Curiously, they also support the "Jewish state" of Israel -- because they see it as non-religious. For that same reason, they support the US, which they clame is the "least religious nation on Earth."

Clearly, the ARI first determines what nation or person it likes, then projects its own fantasies onto it.

Libertarians, OTOH, are neither pro nor anti-religion, but leave it up to the individual. They are, however, consistently individualistic, which means they oppose forcing anyone to support a religion or foreign country, though they permit anyone to do so voluntarily.

[Jaysun]

What would be the point of rising to the bait, when we are likely to be suspended if we say anything really incisive that disagrees with the general mentality here on Unfree Republic?

Setting aside the idea that you can't be incisive, you don't actually see "bait" in this article do you?

[Jaysun]

Libertarians, OTOH, are neither pro nor anti-religion, but leave it up to the individual. They are, however, consistently individualistic, which means they oppose forcing anyone to support a religion or foreign country, though they permit anyone to do so voluntarily.

I still say that Libertarians are Conservatives that want to legalize drugs. There really isn't that big of a difference.

[Red Phillips]

Alright, I'm a self described paleo and I'll take the bait. When you are on the outside and in the minority as the antiwar movement is within establishment conservatism, you often find that folks that agree with you are outside the mainstream in many ways, if you know what I mean. Cranky, oppositional just for the sake of being oppositional, conspiracy minded, etc. (I don't agree with arm chair psychoanalysis though as the writer does because that is a dangerous road to go down. You believe what you believe because you hate your mother. That kind of junk is not acceptable because it is not falsifiable and can be thrown around recklessly, as it has been by the left.) It is a fine line to walk, if you ask me. Posting and promoting people and organizations that may be unsavory in some way because they are with you on a particular issue. People like antiwar.com and lewrockwell.com I think tend toward allowing a lot of input from people we do not really agree with on much else and American Conservative and Chronicles I think plays it closer to the vest. But posting a certain author does not mean unquestioning endorsement of all their stuff.

Re. Sobran. I believe he has become an anarcho-capitalist. That is not my view, but I am definitely an anti-federalist. To suggest that being an anti-federalist is somehow unpatriotic is a joke. That would mean Patrick Henry and George Mason were not patriots. If you look back at the great debate we had between the Federalist and the Anti-Federalist, and then you survey the current situation, it is almost unarguable that the anti-federalist were closer to right. They said the Constitution would not be able to contain the growth of the federal government, and they were absolutely right. Paradoxically, however, the anti-federalist, are the most outspoken in insisting on sticking with the Constitution as originally understood, esp. not doing anything that the Constitution does not specifically authorize.

Re. the Cold War. The Reagan military buildup certainly contributed to the fall of Communism, but Communism HAD to fall with or without it. It was economically unsustainable. Funny how all the conservative Cold Warriors who supposedly believe in the free-market seemed to feel that the laws of economics could be suspended indefinitely in the case of the Soviet Union.

My own opinion is that the pro-war folks need to quit making allegations of unamericanism as the author did although somewhat more subtly than Frum and others. The paleos need to deemphasize their tendency to question motivations and make accusations of dual loyalty. This does not advance true argument for either side. The fundamental issue is what is a conservative foreign policy. I say it is unequivocally nonintervention.

That said. I will throw my hat in with cranky, oppositional, conspiratorial small government types long before I would throw my hat in with big government "conservatives." If the anti-war right is supposed to answer for it's conspiracy theorist and denounce them, then the pro-war folks need to answer for and denounce the big government conservatives such as Brookes. I believe we should mostly let people stand and fall on their own. Purges such as Buckley tried, not only get rid of your unsavory elements it also gets rid of your ideological hard edge, which we need. And we are left with weak liberalism calling itself conservative.

[wotan]

Setting aside the idea that you can't be incisive, you don't actually see "bait" in this article do you?

From the point of view of Jovial Cad, I am guessing here a little, the article is bait because it criticizes a web-site of which paleocons generally have a high opinion. He probably imagines them "rising" to the bait by posting replies that, if ineffective and stupid, he and others will bash, and, if effective and intelligent, will get the respondents suspended or banned.

[dennisw]

Justin-Dennis-Justine Raimondo alert

[Jaysun]

From the point of view of Jovial Cad, I am guessing here a little, the article is bait because it criticizes a web-site of which paleocons generally have a high opinion. He probably imagines them "rising" to the bait by posting replies that, if ineffective and stupid, he and others will bash, and, if effective and intelligent, will get the respondents suspended or banned.

Ah. Thanks for the clarity. I couldn't imagine what paleocons might take issue with here.

[Commie Basher]

Ironic thing about Sobran is that, around 1985 or 1986, he published a massive article called "Pensées" (spell?) in National Review. Buckely hailed it as the Conservative Manifesto, as the culmination and summary of all of conservative wisdom and philosophy.

Does anyone remember Sobran's "Pensées"? I subscribed to NR at the time, but didn't read the article in its entirety. My impression, based on what I did read, was: "This is real boring."

And then, just a few years later, conservatism's new "official philosopher" was booted out of the movement.

[Christopher Lincoln]

Antiwar.com is in large part the legacy of Murray Rothbard; its founder, Justin Raimondo, is Rothbard's follower. Raimondo's biography of Rothbard was entitled The Enemy of the State. But it turned out that Rothbard (and the same is true of Raimondo) was the enemy only of the free state, above all of the United States. I have my ideas about what is behind this, but that would be a much longer post than I have time for (soon, I hope).

Rothbard was vociferously opposed to all efforts to resist Communism (in exact accordance with the Communist line, he applied the phrase "Cold War" exclusively to the actions of the West). Raimondo followed him in this; I confess I find it strange that Mr. Auster was surprised when Antiwar took an a line against the Cold War.

He is mistaken about another point: it is true that in Rothbard's major writings he took a stand for more or less free immigration, but after the fall of the Soviet Union (I think this was the precipitating event) the Rothbardian libertarians reversed their opinion completely.

[Red Phillips]

At first I admit I scanned the article. When I reread it, it is actually more problematic than I thought. He first, very correctly as I pointed out above, criticized the tendency of the Left to make psychological accusations instead of logical arguments. He then turns around and does the exact same thing. The antiwar right is infected with "hate" and surely there is some underlying psychological motivation. Well, while I despise this type of argument, I will join Mr Auster in his hypocrisy and then promise to never do it again. The "mainstream" right is like the middle of the road kid in high school. Neither too popular nor unpopular. But in it's desperate attempt to gain popularity, it discards it long time friends who might be a little quirky or unpopular who are a social drag. If the antiwar folks are angry, the main streamers are craven, opportunist, who will sacrifice any semblance of ideological fidelity for minimal political gain. In other words, weak crowd followers.

I looked on Mr. Auster's blog and saw much to like. He seems generally nonintervention and he is restrictionist on immigration. And he bashed Hugh Hewitt which is always good. Why he is deciding to side with the Front Page Magazine folks is not clear to me. While FPM has some good things to say about political correctness and affirmative action, they proved they were on the wrong side of the great debate when they came out for Lincoln and against DeLorenzo. See the psychology working here. "I'm a conservative, but I'm not one of those disreputable anti-Lincoln conservatives."

The main steam right is obsessed with the concern that somebody, somewhere is going to think they are a kook. They will do anything to maintain "respectability." This means jettisoning anything that smacks of kookiness, but also any ideas that are ideologically outside the mainstream as well. Such as instead of fixing Social Security we ought to abolish it.

Sobran was targeted because he was anti-Isreal but he was getting less and less mainstream as time went on and would have eventually got the ax anyway.

Mr Auster tells us he will have a followup. Well if so, I hope he avoids the psychobabble and hope he publishes in a real conservative publication. But I think his time would be better spent exposing the big government pro-wars and explaining just what he believes the anti-federalist were wrong about.