Posted on 11/09/2003 8:34:59 PM PST by sourcery
Sounds like an oxymoron, doesn’t it? It’s the Left – liberals, left-wingers, socialists, commies, pinkos, the Noam Chomskys and Alec Baldwins and Barbra Streisands – that hates America. But the Right – good old flag-waving patriotic God Bless America conservatives? How could they possibly be anti-American? It sounds ridiculous.
Yet whatever sense or nonsense it makes, anti-Americanism is seeping into the entire conservative movement and is threatening to splinter it into pieces.
I’m not talking about the racist nuts, the white supremacists and militia types. I’m talking about mainstream heartland conservatives. Howard Phillips, head of the famed Conservative Caucus, is one of the founders of the entire modern conservative movement in America. He is a dear friend whom I care for personally, with whom I worked closely on organizing support for the Reagan Doctrine in dismantling the Soviet Empire.
Yet Howard Phillips’ writings and speeches now are indistinguishable from those of Howard Dean’s in their outpouring of vitriol and condemnation of President Bush, accusing him of “war crimes against the people of Iraq.”
Jon Utley, an influential conservative writer and activist of long anti-Communist standing during the Cold War, has simply gone around the bend in his hatred for everything America does in terms of foreign policy and everything the Bush administration does, foreign and domestic.
The same is true for conservative economist Paul Craig Roberts, whose syndicated columns have become so rabid that they seem deranged with hate – such as the claim that the Bush administration is “organizing genocide for Arabs.”
David Keene, head of the American Conservative Union, organizer of the annual C-PAC conference (the largest gathering of conservatives in the country) and member of the Board of Directors of the National Rifle Association, is now in bed with the ACLU in its efforts to demonize Attorney General John Ashcroft and prevent the Patriot Act from catching Moslem terrorists.
Former Congressman Bob Barr, who led the impeachment of Bill Clinton in Congress and is also an NRA board member, has become a paid whore for the ACLU, and now makes a living bashing Bush and Ashcroft.
The single most influential conservative activist in Washington, Grover Norquist, is being investigated by the FBI for his long-standing connections to a network of financiers of Moslem terrorists.
There are many people in Washington who look upon Grover as the conservative movement’s most valuable asset. His Americans for Tax Reform is in the forefront of the entire conservative tax reduction effort. Yet ATR shares office space and staff with the Islamic Institute at 1920 L Street. The same receptionist answers both groups’ phones. Grover is the founding chairman of the Islamic Institute and got the seed money from Abdurahman Alamoudi, just indicted by federal prosecutors for financial connections to al-Qaeda terrorists.
Grover is the conservative movement’s “gatekeeper” to Karl Rove and the White House, yet he is doing everything he can to demonize John Ashcroft, recently appearing on a panel with Alec Baldwin to denounce the attorney general.
Grover is amazingly smart, talented and influential. The source of his pro-Moslem obsession and his passionate defense of radical Moslems linked to Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Hezbollah and al-Qaeda is a mystery to many.
The source of many conservatives’ and libertarians’ hatred for America is, however, no mystery: the baneful influence of the founder of the Libertarian Party, Murray Rothbard. He is the reason why so much of the entire libertarian movement is in bed with the hate-America left, and why so many conservatives are getting under the same covers.
The intellectual parents of the libertarian movement are philosopher Ayn Rand and economist Murray Rothbard, whose followers caused an ideological split in the movement in the 1970s. Randian libertarians are pro-defense, pro-America; Rothbardians are the opposite. Tragically, the latter seized control of the Libertarian Party and have not relinquished it since.
I will never forget the day I canceled my subscription to Rothbard's Libertarian Forum newsletter in 1974. The lead editorial was written by Rothbard, in which he said: "The Soviet Union is the greatest force for peace in the world today." Not once – never – did Rothbard take the side of America in any dispute with the Soviet Union.
I will state it very clearly: Murray Rothbard hated America. He was as Platonist as they come, and hated America for not living up to his anarchist ideals. Rothbard was a black-flag anarchist who argued for the total abolishment of all government entirely. Congressman Chris Cox once told me how much he regretted the ruinous influence of Rothbard upon the Libertarian Party, disenabling it from playing the positive role in American politics he felt it could and should play.
Rothbard’s anti-America left-wing libertarianism is now gaining advocates among conservatives – especially those who are infected by anti-Semitism and can’t stand America’s support for Israel. Rothbard provides an intellectual excuse for their anti-Semitism.
Pat Buchanan is the most well-known among those who use the term “neoconservative” as an insult and code word for “right-wing Jew.” Paul Craig Roberts rants about “the neoconservative jihad against Islam.”
The question of the moment regards the extent to which there will be a parallel between the libertarian right-left schism of the 1970s and the conservative right-left schism emerging today. Left-wing libertarians demolished the Libertarian Party as a major player in American politics. Will left-wing conservatives do the same to the Republican Party?
Standing in the way of their seizing more control within the Republican Party is President George W. Bush. That is why they despise him. Left-wing conservatives are Bush and Ashcroft haters because Bush and Ashcroft are actively protecting American national security.
What separates the anti-American Right from the anti-American Left are social and politico-economic issues. The former remains anti-abortion, pro-family, pro-capitalist, and disdains the latter’s advocacy of abortion, homosexuality, personal irresponsibility and tax-the-rich demagoguery.
What the anti-American Right and the anti-American Left have in common is that they both don’t care about defending their country. That’s why there was not a single panel or speech on terrorism, national security or the war in Iraq at a private conference of conservative leaders held in Colorado Springs last September.
All of these people were staunch anti-Communists during the Cold War. Somehow they have lost their interest or their courage in opposing Islamism in the War on Moslem Terrorism.
What can you do to help prevent the anti-American Right from taking over the conservative movement and causing irreparable damage to both the Republican Party and America’s security?
First, if you know any member of the anti-American Right, tell them by phone, fax, e-mail or smoke signal to come to their senses. Tell them to stop doing Howard Dean imitations and start supporting George Bush and John Ashcroft’s efforts to win the war against Islamic terror.
Second, whenever you see Bush- and Ashcroft-bashing in a conservative publication, write them a letter denouncing it and demand the publication of a counter-balancing article.
Third, if you get into a confrontation with a member of the anti-American Right, don’t back down. Stand your ground and demand that they have the guts to defend America from her enemies.
A lot of these folks will come back at you with a holier-than-thou righteous fury. Tell them to take out their anger on the terrorists who attacked our country, are killing our soldiers in Iraq, and planning more attacks on our cities – not on those who are trying their best to defend us against the terrorists.
If pro-America conservatives and libertarians recognize the threat of anti-America conservatives, and work together to combat it, the threat they pose will evaporate – primarily because I believe that once confronted, many if not most will come to their senses.
These are good people who have gone astray. They are Prodigal Conservatives who should be, and hopefully soon will be, back in our pro-America home once again.
(Article courtesy of Gary North)
Wheeler, who once was one of the late Rothbard's closest friends -- which he'll never admit to any more -- knows very well that Rothbard was not a founder of the Libertarian Party, and was an avowed opponent of it in the most strenuous terms when his associates and ideas were not accepted in its councils and conventions. He detested the idea of such a Party for its first five years, worked with it despite great reluctance for the next seven, and denounced it furiously for the following ten.
Rothbard was, however, a founder of the Cato Institute. He departed from that organization in a furious personal dispute with then and current head Ed Crane, and when Cato turned its applications of Rothbardian and other libertarian ideas to real-world politics, with considerably diluted (though still pointed) rhetoric.
Wheeler's generalizations about Rand vs. Rothbard (ignoring Austrian economics and other influences), about supposed support for monolithic efforts at "defending America," and about Bush's and Ashcroft's witches' brews of potential repression all fail so fully that I'm not going to waste my time on them. This is a commentator who was spurned by those in the libertarian movement who saw him pronouncing beyond his intellect's limits, who was shut out of several inner circles, and who has never forgiven them for it.
Rothbard's formidable intellectual and informed polemical achievements stand for themselves, despite Wheeler's (and other parasites') quotes out of context. Pick up For a New Liberty or his Man, Economy, and State (which even Mises praised) for a counter-dose to this screed. LewRockwell.com has an extensive bibliography with links to collections of his shorter writing, as well. Mises.org has several of Rothbard's books available for free on line.
Don't take Wheeler's bitter diatribe about such a champion of human liberty at face value.
Is Wheeler's charge true or false?
Exactly right.
And to imply that Paul Craig Roberts is an anti-Semite because he happens to recognize that neoconservatives have taken over the Bush Administration is an insult bordering on libel. Roberts may be a hard-liner on immigration, against sending another 100 billion or so to Israel and in favor of making changes to the criminal law, but that hardly qualifies him as a racist or an anti-Semite.
I've read Wheeler's rants for years, and he rarely deviates from the kick-#ss dogma which ingratiated him to Reagan's team of advisors in the '80s. He's very predictible, whether he's writing about the drug lords in Colombia or the Mujahadin. Kill 'em, bomb 'em, make them respect us by the only language they understand: force.
Unfortunately, the world has changed since then. Beating up on little countries as a proxy for all-out war with the Soviet Union no longer has the palliative effect if once had, since there is no more Soviet Union.
The threats we face from the Moslem world, which pale in comparison to the nuclear war we were ready to fight if the Soviets launched a first strike, must be dealt with. But there is divided opinion, even among conservatives, as to whether Iraq is the appropriate place to begin pacifying the Arabs, if that is the right term. Certainly not everyone subscribes to David Brooks' "national greatness" agenda, let alone the goals and methods of the Project for a New American Century. I dare say most conservatives have never read it, talked about it, or would even recognize it if it popped them in the face.
Certainly a person of Jack Wheeler's intellect should understand that opposing certain aspects of our foreign policy is not the same as siding with the enemy, or being anti-American.
These things are debatable, and that's what is happening, whether he likes it or not.
Isn't it better to have the debate among honest conservatives, who can disagree without fabricating lies and slander, than see the Democrats -- without an honest bone in their bodies -- grabbing headlines with their fraudulent, politically-motivated charges?
Of course. I would hope that that's why Lew Rockwell posted Wheeler's article on LewRockwell.com. It's why I posted it here. These issues deserve to be debated--civilly, on their merits.
Wheeler's most substantive point is the fact that Iraq, the War against Islamic Terror, certain aspects of the Patriot Act, and the legal theories surrounding 'enemy combatants,' are all issues that are dividing the anti-Socialists. All factions need to seriously consider the ramifications of that fact.
I would argue that there are two principles that should provide the parameters of the debate:
Absolutely false. Both in the sense that Rothbard took "America," and in the sense that Wheeler and most other conservatives take it.
Rothbard actively inveighed against the automatic identification of a group of people with the State that rules over them. "America" in its productive, individual-created, economic, private sense was what his writings exalted constantly. Anyone who samples his four-volume (and sadly never finished) history of the Colonial and Revolutionary periods, Conceived in Liberty, or his defenses of entrepreneurs in all eras among his other books, will grasp this at once.
He, however, also constantly dissected the tyrannies -- that last word has gone out of favor on FreeRepublic recently -- of the unconstitutional and lawless State that rules over us. Even in the sense of pointing out just how the power-mad rulers the world over were essentially alike in their depredations, despite varying hallowed paper barriers of whatever vintage.
(I'm reminded of a famous cartoon showing FDR making a jocular late-'30s phone call to Stalin: "I'm glad you managed to write a constitution, Joe! I can't find ours!" It illustrates a new edition of John T. Flynn's Roosevelt Myth, from an author that Rothbard devoutly respected as part of America's anti-statist and pre-Buckley "Old Right.")
As to this particular quote Wheeler dug out of context, it was referring -- as Rothbard often did, in assessing political situations -- to how a countervailing power abroad can check the controlling ambitions of statists that are far closer to home. It wasn't that the Soviet State had any virtue -- it was that, for Rothbard, checking the Soviets' influence prevented the American State from stomping more firmly on our own virtues. Especially when free people were needed whose substance could be seized, conscripted, or directed to feed the machines of our supposed "national defense." The latter days of "our" State being a "hyperpower" have not made Americans or their enterprises any more secure among those abroad.
Rothbard despised all States and all tyrannies, foreign or domestic. He gave no particular favor to what has become a failed American experiment in constitutional and limited government. He pointed out at length -- see his Power and Market -- how it carried the seeds of its own demise. As many around here have also acknowledged ... well, until there was yet another "war on."
That one, a classic among Rothbard's short polemics, is clearly one you didn't finish reading, or didn't bother to understand. It's nothing of the kind. It points out, in considerable referenced detail, Friedman's own persisting defenses of the statist status quo. And how his calls for inflation and more "rational" government management of money have made matters worse for all of us.
Friedman was always a utilitarian, and that came through as a poorly-rooted defense of liberty -- as opposed to matters of natural rights, which Rothbard upheld. This was evident even in the "Free to Choose" miniseries and book. Friedman's praises of the entrepreneur and the unfettered spirit were at odds with what he'd done over fifty years to rein in both by supporting governmental whip-making.
Rothbard doesn't attack Friedman or his ideas directly ... only his acquaintances. Where's the alleged rationality by Rothbard?
It's in every line of that prescient and lucid 1971 essay, which you have completely misrepresented.
Friedman IS directly responsible for proposing and implementing two of the worst of our tyrannies: the income-tax withholding scheme, a "temporary" war measure of sixty years back; and the welfarism of a "negative income tax," now partly realized as the Earned Income Tax Credit. Between them, that's enough well-known shameful activity for any lifetime -- no matter his virtues as a writer.
This is my long-winded refutation of author Jack Wheelers article entitled, "The Anti-American Right." At first, this article intrigued me but after analyzing Wheelers thought process line-by-line it occured to me that what we have here is just another immoral utilitarian. Utilitarianism is often considered by many political philosophers to be the lowest-of-the-low. The most immoral of all political philosophies, because it is predicated upon sacrificing principles and engaging in compromises and cutting a few corners in adhering to ideology, if it will lead to some short or long term goal. Of course, low-life utilitarians are not rare, so Wheeler is in good company with most people of this world. Include him with all the people who would turn a blind eye to the 1st Amendment, the 2nd Amendment, the 4th Amendment or the 5th, or 9th or 10th.... Wheeler would undoubtably turn a blind eye to just about any violation of principles if it would get an almighty Republican elected or re-elected. The apparent hero of this misguided writer little story is apparently Bush and Ashcroft, our saviors. Wheeler thinks the whole conservative movement is against Bush and he sets out to set everyone straight.
Perhaps it is Wheeler who needs the straightening out because he fails to see exactly why the "conservative movement" is against Bush, and he fails to want to see the real truth even though every "think-tank" has been making these facts known. Wheeler wants no part of these realities if they don't fit his "Bush the hero" and "Ashcroft the hero" public relations campaign. We're talking two guys (especially Bush) who have irked conservatives nationwide because Bushs anti-gun position is now well known to not be in support of the 2nd Amendment as he plans to reauthorize the most viscions anti-gun law this country has ever known; the "assault weapons ban". Furthermore, Ashcroft, the man who had once earned great accolades among gun owners for his brave act of affirming the 2nd Amendment as an individual right as one of his first acts as Attorney General, is now beginning to waver on his position. Either he has changed his mind, or he was 'full of crap' to begin with and was just pandering to the 2nd Amendment crowd to get their support.
Here is what the Conservative Caucus has on their web site about Bush/Ashcroft:
" Larry Pratt, Executive Director of Gun Owners of America, asks "If the Bush Administration is so gung-ho for gun rights, why are they going against an overwhelming majority of the American people and the Airline Pilots Association by opposing the right of pilots to have firearms and to serve as the last line of defense in the battle against terrorism in the skies? "And why is Attorney General Ashcroft backpedaling on the remarks he made that the Second Amendment was intended to protect the right of individuals, not just militias, to keep and bear arms? "In a recent interview on Larry King, John Ashcroft said ‘Reasonable regulations regarding the ownership of weapons are appropriate’ and [the Brady restrictions] are reasonable regulations, and they’re to be defended [by the Bush Administration]."The Administration also stated that our individual gun rights are ‘subject to reasonable restrictions designed to prevent possession by unfit persons or to restrict possession of firearms that are particularly suited to criminal misuse."So who are ‘unfit persons’? Airline Pilots? Teachers? Residents of Washington, D.C.? Right now, all three groups of people are, apparently, unfit to carry firearms for their self-defense. …"I hate to say it but I am beginning to question the depth of support this Administration really has for our gun rights."
--------------------------- Wheeler: Yet whatever sense or nonsense it makes, anti-Americanism is seeping into the entire conservative movement and is threatening to splinter it into pieces.
This guy apparently suffers from the same mental impairment as former President Clinton. Clinton once remarked that [paraphrasing] "He could not understand how people could claim to be "pro-America" yet "anti-government?" It's all in the context of course, but it only takes a 5th grade education to understand the context. There are people who see a big difference between the way their government really is, in opposition to the way it (a) should be, or is (b) supposed to be according to the founding principles of that country.
There does not exist one reputable conservative think-tank in all of america that does not understand this distinction. Yet Mr. Wheeler, the wanna-be conservative either does not understand, or he chooses not to understand because it weakens his imaginary straw-man arguments. Every 6th grader understand this, and it is what every think-tank has been telling people for the last 30 years.
James Madisons vision of America is gone, and it is that destruction of our founding principles which people resent, Mr. Wheeler. ... and your lies and utilitarian mentality are part of the problem.
Wheeler: Howard Phillips, head of the famed Conservative Caucus, is one of the founders of the entire modern conservative movement in America. Yet Howard Phillips' writings and speeches now are indistinguishable from those of Howard Dean's in their outpouring of vitriol and condemnation of President Bush
Watch this, we're going to follow a trend here. Mr. Wheeler is going to name a bunch of big time conservative organizations which he claims are "against Bush."... and in fact, these are organizations he respects! However, what Mr Wheeler won't tell you anywhere in his ranting "bush-bot" diatribe is why these think tanks don't like Bush or other low-life compromisers of our freedoms. Mr. Wheeler just wants to set up his straw- man arguments about Iraq and how great Bush is doing over there... he's like a broken record... he refuses to aknowledge that none of this really has anything whatsoever to do with conservative values or the founding principles of our country. Where the hell in the Second Amendment, 4th, 9th or 10th Amendment does it say anything about Iraq. Oh yeah, the whole friggin world revolves around Iraq I guess.. Suspend the laws of physics, forget about chemistry and the Constitution... Being a good "Republican" is all about Iraq. What a moronic straw-man argument.
David Keene, head of the American Conservative Union, organizer of the annual C-PAC conference (the largest gathering of conservatives in the country) and member of the Board of Directors of the National Rifle Association, is now in bed with the ACLU in its efforts to demonize Attorney General John Ashcroft and prevent the Patriot Act from catching Moslem terrorists.
Uh oh. Heres this trend I was talking about. He drops more names of conservative who are "against" Bush and Ashcroft, but yet not once will he tell you why nearly the whole conservative movement is against any-and- all low life political scuzzballs who won't protect the Constitution and sell our gun rights down the river.
Former Congressman Bob Barr, who led the impeachment of Bill Clinton in Congress and is also an NRA board member, has become a paid whore for the ACLU, and now makes a living bashing Bush and Ashcroft.
Oh look, he drops even more names. But again, he won't tell us why Bob Barr is against Bush's and Ashcrofts policies. Maybe because they crap on the Constitution? Oh yeah, I forgot. The Constitution no longer exists in Wheelers demented revisionist-history version of a "conservative america." It's all about how great Bush is doing in Iraq, because Iraq is now the center of the universe and a shining example of how great Bush has made Iraq now that its "free."
The source of many conservatives' and libertarians' hatred for America is, however, no mystery: the baneful influence of the founder of the Libertarian Party, Murray Rothbard. He is the reason why so much of the entire libertarian movement is in bed with the hate-America left, and why so many conservatives are getting under the same covers.
The intellectual parents of the libertarian movement are philosopher Ayn Rand and economist Murray Rothbard, whose followers caused an ideological split in the movement in the 1970s.
Thats right, and that was the greatest damned thing that could ever happen to the right-wing movement. It was a seperation between those who held true moralistic right wing values based on the political philosophy of John Locke and the 300 years of prior political-economic philosophy, versus the pretenders who were low-life utilitarians who would violate their principles if it suited their convenience and agenda. It was these utilitarian low-lives who made up the vast portion of modern New-Conservatives who became totally infected by the gradual "New Deal" socialism mentality which currently plagues America. You show me a "Conservative" who is not totally willing to eliminate every vestige of socialism in America, from top-to-bottom, in a proverbial heart-beat, and I'll show you a low-life utilitarian wanna-be New-conservative masquerading as a conservative.
Rothbards era (inspred by the likes of Von Mises and others) represented a grande era for political theorists. It was finally time to seperate the pretenders who we shall properly call the "New-Conservatives" from the true moralistic extremist right-wingers (the Old-Conservatives) who tended to border on anarchism (at least in theory) such as in the case of Murray Rothbard (but he was a believe in government, make no mistake).
I will state it very clearly: Murray Rothbard hated America. He was as Platonist as they come, and hated America for not living up to his anarchist ideals.
Rothbard hates America??? Gee, that must be why Rothbard has written one of the most monumental 4 part tomes on American history that has ever been published. Rothbards 4 hardcover bound set entitled "Conceived in Liberty" is highly regarded. I'm sorry, what books on American history has Wheeler published, caused I'm just wondering how Wheeler the genius scholar has enlightened the world.
This isn't Wheelers first jibe at Rothbard. He's got personal "issues" with Rothbard (and Raynd) arrogance, and in an interview I've seen with Wheeler, it appears that the man had nothing of much substance to say in refutation to Rothbards theory. Wheeler merely feels that Rothbard was too much of a theorist (platonist) who viewed the rest of society as impure if they didn't adhere to strict philisophical princples. Well guess what Mr. Wheeler, I feel the same way about your blatently obvious utilitarian principles.
Rothbard was a black-flag anarchist who argued for the total abolishment of all government entirely. Congressman Chris Cox once told me how much he regretted the ruinous influence of Rothbard upon the Libertarian Party, disenabling it from playing the positive role in American politics he felt it could and should play.
So, big friggin deal? Again, another stupid straw-man argument from Wheeler. As an academic theorist who is highly regarded, Murray Rothbard is entitled to engage in as much theory as he damned well pleases to investigate, because thats what academics do. Wheeler sounds more like an anti-academic heretic than an educated man. Any uneducated person who can't understand the motivation that mathemeticians, and physicists, and economists, and political-theorists/philosophers feel about their work is not in a position to be passing judgement. Obviously, "theory" is "above Mr. Wheelers" intelligence level, else he probably would be doing it himself. Anyone who criticizes theorists is an insult to intelligent mankind. God help the world if there were no Einstein's (whos work continues to be complete and total theory to this day) or mathemeticians who are all shining examples of theorists. The world would never advance if anti-academic/anti-theoretical persons such as Wheeler were controlling information.
Rothbard ........ libertarianism is now gaining advocates among conservatives - especially those who are infected by anti-Semitism and can't stand America's support for Israel. Rothbard provides an intellectual excuse for their anti-Semitism. Pat Buchanan is the most well-known among those who use the term "neoconservative" as an insult and code word for "right-wing Jew."
Rothbard's anti-America left-wing libertarianism
This right here folks, is Wheelers shining example of his own stupidity. Libertarianism (American libertarianism in particular as far as this discussion is concerned) is the most Far-Right political philosophy there is short of anarcho-capitalism. Libertarians are BY FAR the most avid capitalists which makes them the most right wing. Furthermore, from a historical perspective, libertarians are by far the most far-right devotees of maintaining the original vision of America as intended by our founding fathers. Libertarians are not "left wing" on social issues, because this is just yet another obfuscation by modern New-Conservatives (socialist/communist trash) who try to pretend that "social" and "economic" freedoms are seperable issues. They are not, nore have they ever been, and 300 years of political philosophy bears this out. "Social freedoms" are merely a subset of "economic freedoms" and it all stems from (well to a large degree) from John Locke's "Second Treatise" where he laid the foundation for "self ownership." In short, man can never be secure in his physical property if he cannot be secure in his "self." A mans "thoughts and ideas" are considered property in the same manner as physical property such as land. Thats why we have copyrights and patents and trademarks, because it recognizes that "ideas" are property. As soon as we allow government to start revoking peoples right to own ideas and buy, sell or trade them... it then becomes apparent that government tyrants can revoke your physical property as well at a mere whim.
Any attempt to pass "pornography laws" or "anti-free speech laws" or outlaw "hate speech" or any of that othercrap which passes for new communist-conservatism is the antithesis of Old-Conservatism. True Conservatives would never support porno laws nor laws against suicide, or gays or anything else that interferes with a persons right to do with their own body as they will, because only they own it. Old-Conservatives fiercely oppose such things else that are not true extreme Right-wingers, but are in reality, piece of undisciplined garbage utilitarians who compromise their principles to suit their personal feelings or agenda du jour.
American libertarians are probably the most devoted group of scholars of American history that exist in the political spectrum. Their literature is filled with american history. Yet, Republicans and Democrats view americas history largely as a marketing ploy to be toyed with if it'll getthem some votes. One only has to logon to the GOP web site to find that it is almost totally devoid of any historical content. Their real good at using keywords like "patriotism", and they've got nice little flags plastered all over their web sites.... because thats the marketing ploy. Try reading a book from the CATO INstitute versus a piece of trash book written by O'Reilly or Hannity; you'll immedately see who is the big pretender. Libertarianism is rife with ultra patriotism, and ultra obsession with our founding fathers. Too bad the same cannot be said of Republicans and Democrats. Dems and Reppublicans feel that if they were to start "spouting stuff about Madison" then they would lose their target audience because your average person would view such stuff as an "abstraction". You see, its all a marketing ploy to them. Dems and Republicans cannot deal with James Madison and Jefferson and present those view to the general public on their web sites or in TV commercials because they are afraid to lose votes! They are cowards, and they are phonies, and they are thusly not the most dedicated to the ultra right-wing preservation of Americas heritage.
Left-wing libertarians demolished the Libertarian Party as a major player in American politics.
More phony lies about libertarianism, because Wheeler is so clearly jealous and he cannot mentally deal with the fact that libertarians are so far to the ultra-right that they make Wheeler and his cadre of New-Conservatives look like the whining socialists that they really are. Anti-gun supporters, anti Constitution supporters, and anti-property rights supporters.
Will left-wing conservatives do the same to the Republican Party?
99.44 percent of the Republican Party is left wing by libertarian standards, so what the hell is Wheeler talking about? This guy didn't get the memorandum obviously, that the New-Conservatives took this country over back around the time of the "New-Deal", and this country has slid so far to the ultra-left that we no longer even realize that we're a socialist nation that probably spends more socialist money than any other government in the world.
I said it before, and I'll say it again.... any Republican who is not willing to eliminate every single vestage of socialism in American, from top-to-bottom, and to do so in a proverbial heartbeat, is not a true Conservative. They are a New-conservatve-communists masquerading as a conservative. Only the true libertarians like Rothbard would dare have the balls to dismantle every single vestage of socialism in a heartbeat, and put the New- Conservatives to shame.
Standing in the way of their seizing more control within the Republican Party is President George W. Bush. That is why they despise him. Left-wing conservatives are Bush and Ashcroft haters because Bush and Ashcroft are actively protecting American national security.
Your frigging kidding me right? Yeah. That's it. I'm sure thats it. There exists this big "conspiracy" against Bush and Ashcroft because the whole conservative movement who is against Bush and Ashcroft really don't want our nation defended. This is probably the stupidest thing Wheeler has ever said in his lifetime and certainly in this article.
Again, Wheeler fabricates more imaginary straw-man arguments. He keeps blabbing on about Iraq, but completely forgetting that Conservatives now have a seething hatred for Ashcroft and Bush because they have demonstratedly pissed on Americans gun rights and their Constitutional rights and have damaged the fabric of society which Madison and Jefferson and Hamilton worked so hard to create.
What separates the anti-American Right from the anti-American Left are social and politico-economic issues. The former remains anti-abortion, pro- family, pro-capitalist, and disdains the latter's advocacy of abortion, homosexuality, personal irresponsibility and tax-the-rich demagoguery.
Pro-family issues have nothing whatsoever to do with "left-wing" or "right wing." This is just another example of why Wheeler is ignorant of political philosophy and really does not deserve to be writing for an online journal. That job should be given to somebody whos more educated. Cheap polemics, thats all.
Homosexuality also has nothing whatsoever to do with the Right-Wing agenda. More examples of Wheelers complete ignorance of 300 years of political philosophy. What is very relevant however is the recognition of property rights. I already abstracted Lockes theory; briefly reiterated, Man cannot be secure in his physical property until he is secure in his person. Anyone who dares attempt to regulate what people do with their own bodies violates the most sacrosancy principle of economic Conservatism which has existed for 300 years. Such people are no conservatives, they are filthy socialists/communists who proved they don't value the right to property; their willing to compromise a little for purposes of their perceived morality. What these phonies don't realize is that their compromise merely pushes their values that much farther the left wing.
All of these people were staunch anti-Communists during the Cold War. Somehow they have lost their interest or their courage in opposing Islamism in the War on Moslem Terrorism.
Which "WAR" would that be, because I don't ever remember Congress declaring War in the last 50 years, as is required in the United States Constitution? Perhaps this is yet another reason Conservatives despise Bush. In fact, I know damned well this is the reason because I can go to half the big conservative web sites and see that this is in fact a major gripe. Just look how the "Conservative Caucus" feels about this issue at their web site. Their feelings on the matter are not timid, and of course the libertarians are even more strong on this issue. Just another reality that Wheeler would like us all to forget.
Third, if you get into a confrontation with a member of the anti- American Right, don't back down. Stand your ground and demand that they have the guts to defend America from her enemies. A lot of these folks will come back at you with a holier-than-thou righteous fury. Tell them to take out their anger on the terrorists who attacked our country
Well Mr. Wheeler, maybe you shall never understand why their is a vast conspiracy against those who destroy America from within (which includes anti-gun Bush, and now it seems very sadly, even anti-gun Ashcroft... [see quotes at top of this message] ).
What you shall never understand, because you are anti-american trash, is that protecting Constitution of the United States is worth the life of every single american who is currently alive, as well as those who shall be born in all future generations. Indeed the Constitution is worth the life indeed of every man, woman and child on the face of the planet. You see, because we're not just talking about the Constitution here, thats just a euphemism, a piece of paper. We're talking about freedom; the opposite of slavery.
The thousands of people who died in the World Trade Center incident was a mere drop in the bucket, and tens of thousands of times that number have died in American wars prior to that to protect freedom. Freedom and the Constitution was easily worth my life, your life, and the life of every man and woman inside those world Trade Center Towers. Those people are insignificant insofar as freedom goes.
The greatest terrorist threat which has ever existed, and which plagues this nation is not from Arabs.... Our greates threat is from the domestic terrorists who infiltrate our country. They are the "communists" (who think they can hijack the airline industry with State-regulation), "socialists" which includes the left wing as well as the rest of the "New- Conservatives" (who are still socialists any way you slice it), and add to that anyone who screws with the Bill of Rights in any way, shape or form. You people are domestic terrorists who are destroying the fabric of our nation from within.
If James Madison saw what you were doing with his country, he'd bitch-slap you from here to next week, but I could only speculate that Madison would be too much of a gentleman even to do that.
Rothbardian Libertarian posted on 2003-11-05 05:14:31 ET Reply Trace
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.