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.
“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.”
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 haven’t 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 can’t believe a so called “conservative” would argue that something is constitutional just because a court hasn’t ruled against it.”
Ask DeMint if he thinks drug laws are constitutional lol. I guess he’s not a conservative either.
” Obamacare isn’t unconstitutional either I guess, because a Court hasn’t 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 borrow Money on the credit of the United States;
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;
To establish Post Offices and post Roads;
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;
To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy;
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
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.
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.