Skip to comments.Neoconservatism, not libertarianism, is the true aberration on the American Right
Posted on 04/08/2010 9:27:19 AM PDT by rabscuttle385
During a question-and-answer session at the 2010 Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington, D.C., one man opined, "One thing I've learned here at CPAC is that the 'C' actually doesn't stand for 'libertarianism.' It's not 'L'PAC." When Congressman Ron Paul won the annual straw poll at CPAC, talk radio host Rush Limbaugh made a point to tell his listeners that CPAC wasn't conservative this year because a libertarian had won.
Both men are worse than just wrong. They're out of their minds.
Arguably the most popular history of American conservatism, George H. Nash's book The Conservative Intellectual Movement in America begins with libertarianism. In the first chapter titled "The Revolt of the Libertarians," Nash states: "For those who believed in the creed of old-fashioned, classical, 19th-century liberal individualism, 1945 was especially lonely, unpromising, and bleak. Free markets, private property, limited government, self reliance, laissez-faire it had been a long time since principles like these guided government and persuaded peoples."
Chronicling the intellectuals who tried to rectify this bleakness, Nash begins his history with two men: economists F.A. Hayek and Ludwig von Mises. Then he explains how these libertarian heroes kick-started the American conservative movement. Few actually used the word "conservatism" in 1945, a term that began to gain popularity when Russell Kirk's book The Conservative Mind was published in 1953 and with the founding of William F. Buckley's National Review in 1955. Nash notes that even Kirk was inspired by both Hayek and Mises, writing to a friend that these men represented a "great school of economists of a much sounder and different mind."
After Hayek and Mises, Nash then cites Albert Jay Nock, publisher of the unabashedly libertarian magazine The Freeman in the 1920s. Writes Nash: "Nock came to exert a significant amount of influence on the postwar Right," yet was so libertarian that "Nock verged on anarchism in his denunciations of the inherently aggrandizing State." Noting the impression Nock made on a young Buckley, Nash explained that "it was Nockian libertarianism, in fact, which exercised the first conservative influence on the future editor of National Review."
Edwin J. Feulner, Jr., president of the conservative think tank the Heritage Foundation, says, "Nash's work is one of the very few books that must be read for a full understanding of the conservative movement in America." However, Feulner's Heritage Foundation advertises on Limbaugh's show, where the host is seemingly oblivious to the fact that the American conservative movement could not have existed without libertarianism. Furthermore, pundits like Rush often claim to be "Reagan conservatives." However, they seem to forget that in 1976 said Reagan, "I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism." As you can see, advocating for "limited government" without employing some degree of libertarianism would be logistically impossible.
Which is exactly why so many of today's so-called conservatives are so quick to dismiss it. If there is an interloping ideology on the Right today, it is not libertarianism but neoconservatism, an ideology born not of limited government philosophy but of ex-socialists who migrated Right in reaction to the counterculture of the 1960s. Today, neoncons are devoted to promoting the maintenance and expansion of America's global empire.
Whereas traditional conservatives considered war and the massive bureaucracy necessary to wage it an occasional, necessary evil, neoconservatives consider perpetual war a good precisely because they believe it is America's mission to export democracy to the rest of the world.
Questioning the cost or wisdom of waging perpetual war is considered unconscionable or even "unpatriotic" to neoconservatives, which is why they are so dismissive of libertarians and others who question foreign policy. Most neoconservatives instinctively realize that their ideology is incompatible with the libertarian's pesky obsession with limited government, giving neocons reason to marginalize, or expel, any libertarian influence that threatens to expose the statist nature of today's mainstream conservative movement.
Considering their new, radical definition, it's easy to see why Rush and other mainstream conservatives don't consider libertarians part of their movement because they're not. And while it remains to be seen how the irreconcilable differences will play out between limited government libertarians (whose numbers are growing) and big government neoconservatives (whose ideology still dominates), let there be no more ignorance about which philosophy is truly more alien to the historical American conservative movement. And let there be no further delusions about which philosophy was most responsible for creating it.
Catch Southern Avenger commentaries every Tuesday and Friday at 7:50 a.m. on the "Morning Buzz with Richard Todd" on 1250 AM WTMA.
Ok they, what provision in the Constitution allows the drug laws? You sound like a lefty defending the Constitutionality of Obamacare.
rbmiilerjr... proud, ardent, and zealous supporter of societies laws...
...including health care, and if cap-n-trade passes, that too!
Please make a more coherent argument...I mean that is just silly.
I ll respond when I get back from my son’s baseball practice.
Obamacare is socialism.......I have my own insurance.
Oh, I see... “conservatives” don’t have to justify their favorite government programs constitutionally... only the liberals. Suddenly when someone asks where in the Constitution Congress is authorized to enact drug regulations, “conservatives” don’t care about the Constitution.
You can find any justification for violating the Constitution, and your motives may even be pure, but it’s still no excuse. You apparently love big government way to much to call yourself a conservative.
I’m beginnng to suspect that these so-called “conservatives” who love big government, are actually a liberal fifth column, here to undermine our unity.
Most of the discussions on liberty by John Stuart Mill center upon individual freedoms within a society such as you find in England at the time of his writing. The principle of negative liberty is often laid at his feet. I am not familiar with Mill’s position on international affairs. Burke would be worth studying on this issue since he was involved with the issues of colonization and war. He was opposed to the intervention of England in America, but he was not opposed to colonization or British force. I do not know enough about Burke to speak intelligently upon how he combined liberalism and colonization. Locke was the primary philosophical force behind Jefferson and others of that time. Locke was more about the social contract than anything else. I do not know what Locke’s views were on international relationships. My view is that Washington’s views on political affairs was based more upon commonsense and experience than upon a political philosophy. It seems to me that the issue with which we are debating is the relationship between Liberalism and international or global nexus. This is my question. Is the use of military force in international affairs contrary to Liberalism?
Yeah, we must not be conservative because we believe in strictly obiding by Constitutional restraints on government, opposition to the nanny state, and opposition to nation building hopskotch throughout the globe. Back in Barry Goldwater’s day they would call us conservatives but somehow these guys are now the “conservatives” lol
The Social Contract tells us that individuals have their natural rights and loan it to government. But government cannot have powers loaned to them that the people themselves do not have. (We can have police enforce laws against armed robbery, because I as an individual can protect my property and self against armed robbery so I can “loan” that power to my government... On the contrary, I cannot steal money from my neighbor to help a person in need as that is theft; therefore, I cannot “loan” that power to the government either... i.e. redistribution of wealth is still theft).
If we take that view of legitimate government powers must originate from the individuals that loan those powers to the government, then how can I justify a non-defensive use of force against another country? If I, as an individual, cannot attack my neighbor then I cannot authorize my country to attack another country. However, if my neighbor attacks me I can defend myself and if a nation attacks the United States we can defend ourselves.
Most libertarians do not oppose national defense. Ron Paul voted FOR the operations in Afghanistan for example. However, that doesn’t justify “nation building” in Afghanistan or pre-emptive war in Iraq through the lens of the Social Contract.
“Dope is against the law for good reason.”
Sure, but the law has done zero to keep people from getting dope.
I join the other posters who hate dopers and dope, but hate the “War on Drugs” just as much.
Here's a hint: It took an Amendment to wage a "War on Alcohol".
If you come back with "commerce clause" I swear to the Gods I will reach through the Internet and slap the stupid off of you.
If your neighbor threatened that he was going to rape and kill your wife and daughters, would you wait until he acted? We have a different understanding of the scope of a social contract. I do not agree that as an individual that I do not have the right of self-preservation that includes preemption. My social contract with the government is to act in my best interest, which would include preemptive actions. We no longer live in a world that allows us to be reactionary. The consequences of failure to act in a preemptive way is simply too grave. If you want to debate whether or nor a specific situation requires preemptive action, that is another matter.
And what is true of the leaders is even more true of the rank and file of the movement. The relative ease with which a young communist could be converted into a Nazi or vice versa was generally known in Germany, best of all to the propagandists of the two parties. Many a university teacher during the 1930's has seen English and American students return from the Continent uncertain whether they were communists or Nazis and certain only that they hated Western liberal civilization.
While to the Nazi the communist and to the communist the Nazi, and to both the socialist, are potential recruits made of the right timber, they both know that there can be no compromise between them and those who really believe in individual freedom.
- FA Hayek The Road to Serfdom
And that would be...what?
Let me know when you run across a Libertarian on this board who is a 'dopehead'.
Have another martini, LOL
Ron Paul did vote for that measure. However the resolution said nothing about 'building democracy' in Afghanistan.
Mission creep has started to turn that conflict into something that looks a hell of a lot like Vietnam.
Calm down Corpse, no need for that.
Simply point out that the Commerce clause has no effect on the present legality of alcohol. Any regulation at all of alcohol (by the states) required constitutional amendment. Namely, the same 21st Amendment that repealed Prohibition.
Idiots that argue the commerce clause have to explain why the 21st Amendment was written in the manner that it was.
“If you believe in freedom as a moral concept then then extending that liberty and freedom to others means that sometimes youre going to have to allow folks to do things you dont agree with. Allowing them to do it doesnt mean you support it, it just means you oppose controlling others. At the same time, society owes you the same respect and should not control you. Government intervention and control isnt okay simply because its intentions are something we agree with... government intervention and control is wrong whenever it extends beyond the purpose of keeping the peace.?
The words just needed to be repeated for quite a few folks on here (mainly thinking of the anti-smokers).
I agree, that’s why I said the resolution doesn’t justify “nation building” in Afghanistan.
That’s an accurate assessment of Bush but (much as I dislike his record) I wouldn’t call him a neocon.
“Oh, I see... conservatives dont have to justify their favorite government programs constitutionally... only the liberals. Suddenly when someone asks where in the Constitution Congress is authorized to enact drug regulations, conservatives dont care about the Constitution.”
I reject your premise.
To state that state or federal drug laws are unconstitutional is abject ignorance. The Constitution is not a set of codes or laws, it is the framwork for our Government.
Let’s see...federal drug law was initiated in the mid to late 30’s and it has never been credibly challenged. I don’t know when state drug laws were set up, but it is obviously much earlier than federal laws. There have been no credible challenge to state drug laws either....ever.
Asking a non-relevant question is not reasoning. Asking where in the Constitution Drug laws are justified is like asking, “what part of the Constitution authorizes Stop Signs?”
The real question is what state or federal codes are unconstitutional? Please answer this. Why have these laws not been challenged Constitutionally?
Epic fail. You guys give a third grade interpretation of the Constitution and sit back and ignore the reality of the long existence of these drug laws and the lack of constitutional challenges that merit serious review, let alone toppling these laws.
Post 121 is for you too.
Epic history fail. You are in dire need of some corrective phrenology.
GW Bush isn’t a neocon because he’s not Jewish.
Okay. You still haven’t provided where in the Constitution Congress is authorized to regulate drug laws. Article I, Section 8 lays out specific enumerated powers. The tenth amendment reinforces my position even more. The founders intended Congress to have only those limited powers. This exceeds it.
I will agree that the Supreme Court since the New Deal has re-interpreted much of the Constitutional restrictions in an expansionist view. However, is it your position that Conservatives are now arguing FOR expansive government powers on the federal level that go beyond the STRICT CONSTRUCTIONIST view of the constitution that they give lip service to? If not, then please provide the authorizing clause of the constitution. If you cannot do that, then you are simply arguing for a “living breathing” Constitution that liberals champion that is a disgrace to our founders.
What part of the Constitution authorizes “stop signs”?
Again, the Constitution is the framework for our government. The legislative branch is set up to write law. When these laws are unconstitutional, the judicial branch is the remedy to review and overturn the unconstitutional law.
Please provide the specific drug laws that have been overturned or even reviewed credibly. I know of some minor cases but nothing challenging the actual codes that specify specific drugs as being illegal.
You do know that Roads are specifically mentioned in Art 1 Sec 8? That most traffic laws are State laws?
Feel free to continue talking out your ass, just don't expect to be taken too seriously.
The problem is that too many people who think they are conservative still long to force their idea about morals onto the rest of the country. If you are for freedom then you must be against the war on drugs. It has hurt our freedom as much, if not more, as anything else the left has done to us.
“The problem is that too many people who think they are conservative still long to force their idea about morals onto the rest of the country.”
They may, and should, preach as much as they want about what we should and should not do, but keep the government out of it. They may be annoying to some, but there is no constitutional right to not be annoyed.
Stop signs? Roads are primarily a function of the state governments. Although post roads are an enumerated power under Article I, Section 8.
Still, just because the federal government exceeds its constitutional authority now doesn’t mean it should. That’s an argument liberals use to justify their big government programs. You still haven’t provided me with a clause that authorizes drug laws.
“Feel free to continue talking out your ass, just don’t expect to be taken too seriously.”
You exemplify arrogance without competence.
I’m talking out my ass lol, yet you in all of your delusional knowledge are wrong. How can you be so delusional as to think you’re right when the reality of the unchallenged drug laws are sitting there as they have been since the 1930’s.
Still waiting on the SC cases to show the state or federal drug laws unconstitutional.
“If you are for freedom then you must be against the war on drugs.”
Dumbest post of the day.
All law reflects some degree of morality.
“You still havent provided me with a clause that authorizes drug laws.”
You still haven’t showed me one drug law ruled unconstitutional. Keep in mind they’ve existed since the 1930s and well before that at the state level.
Ah, yes when all else fails act like Al Sharpton and play the bigot card. Plenty of neocons are not Jewish including Michael Novak, Jeanne J. Kirkpatrick, Daniel P. Monyhan.
Jews are are also extremely well represented in the antiwar movement and libertarian movement as well. I suppose by that standard I could imply that you're anti-semetic for opposing those movements! Then again, I don't play the bigot card.
There is no provision in the constitution that allows it. I can’t believe a so called “conservative” would argue that something is constitutional just because a court hasn’t ruled against it. Obamacare isn’t unconstitutional either I guess, because a Court hasn’t ruled against it. Did you know that the Suprme Court’s power of judicial review itself is not even in the Constitution? Yep, look it up. That power didn’t exist until the Court gave itself that power in Marburry v. Madison (1803). Since then we have had to rely on the Court, a branch of the federal government, to hold back the powers of the federal government. Conservatives historically have been against that. But not so anymore apparently.
And also, marijuana has only been illegal on federal law since 1970 (not the 1930s) with the Controlled Substances Act. Before then, lawmakers realized there was no constitutional authority to ban drugs without a constitutional amendment (like with alchohol prohibition). Instead, to get around that, the federal government required the purchase of a tax stamp (which never actually was sold) in order to possess marijuana. Without the stamp, the one who possessed marijuana would simply be prosecuted for not paying the tax. Since 1970, the federal government instead of evading the intent of the constitution outright evades it.
“I cant believe a so called conservative would argue that something is constitutional just because a court hasnt ruled against it.”
Ask DeMint if he thinks drug laws are constitutional lol. I guess he’s not a conservative either.
” Obamacare isnt unconstitutional either I guess, because a Court hasnt ruled against it.”
Reductio absurdum fallacy. Actually, ObamaCare is being challenged by many state Attorney’s General on constitutional grounds...and it’s provisions aren’t even fully enacted yet. This just makes your drug law argument look weaker, since they’ve been enforced and unchallenged for over 80 years lol.
There are 17 specific powers given in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution. The tenth amendment tells us every other power is reserved to the states. I don’t care what activist judges say, there is no authority for the federal government to do anything outside those 17 areas except for the few areas the Constitution was amended to allow.
Any “conservative” who says otherwise, is not a conservative in the traditional sense. Such a person might pay lip service to “Strict Constructionist” or “Original Intent” but doesn’t consistently apply that principle to big government he supports.
So you are an advocate of judicial activism as well as the "living document" theory of the Constitution.
Figures. Here, I'll make it easy...
Section. 8. The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
Now... Where does it say a damn thing about a "drug war"?
Horse shit. You are fooling yourself. Your post ranks in as the dumbest for the decade. As I said, and I repeat, if you are not against the war on drugs you are against freedom and are not a conservative.
Everybody, 95% of the country and conservatives are just ignorant lol.
But you are a genius. I think it is you who doesn’t understand conservatism. Enjoy your self-exile in the Libertarian Party.
I gave you my argument, you simply refuse to acknowledge it and decided to concentrate on the one thing I said that wasn’t an argument. Get real, get a life. You are the only one on this thread who had a problem with what I said. So, yes, Horse Shit.
So every road, highway, traffic light and stop sign is covered under “post Roads”.
Why you are practically a Living Constitution Big Government Doppelganger lover.
Again, the Constitution sets the framework up for our representative constitutional republic, it is not a set of codes or laws. It is representative government which has agreed without any credible debate that state and federal Drug Laws are constitutional.
“I dont care what activist judges say, there is no authority for the federal government”
Chief Justice Roberts, Alito, Scalia and Thomas all agree with me.
I think you don’t really comprehend conservatism nor the Constitution.
Really? Since you understand the constitution so well, WHAT PROVISION AUTHORIZES DRUG LAWS?
No... he’s not saying it’s covered under post roads. The road systems are by and large run by the states. Even the interstate highway system is run by the states although the federal government gives funding to the states to help cover the costs. But THERE ARE LOTS OF THINGS THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT DOES THAT ARE NOT CONSTITUTIONAL! That doesn’t justify them. Some of us want a return to Constitutionally constrained government.
I’m in the majority opinion both with the American people and the conservative justices.
The burden is on you to show that the established laws are unconstitutional.
You can’t, so I don’t have to ...lol, but I could.
The burden is on ME to show it’s unconstitutional? Ok. It’s not in the f’ing constitution. Article I, Section 8 was posted above with the 17 specific powers of Congress. My case is rested, please rebut. The only acceptable rebuttal is to show a clause in the Constitution that authorizes it.
It has been pointed out to you a number of times that traffic laws are State laws. The the Federal highway system is allowed for in Art 1 Sec 8.
The Constitution is two lists. One, is a list of things the FedGov has authority to do. The other, is a list of things no government in the US is allowed to do.
They may only do the former and NONE of the latter. Anything not expressly listed is prohibited and left to the States and the people of those States.
You, in your twisted liberal head, seem to uphold the current "democracy" we have devolved into.
Piss off loser.
Swing and a miss.