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.
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.
“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.”
So “post Roads” is transformed into federal money for state roads and an entire interstate National Hwy stystem.
There is nothing specific in Art 1 Sec 8 that authorizes either of the above mentioned. So you are picking and choosing which issues you want to “strictly” interpret.
“The Constitution is two lists.”
A true exemplar of of your level of understanding. In a conversation where you’ve managed to use third grade reasoning, somehow, you manage to go down yet another grade level.
There’s no point in arguing with this guy. We state facts and make a reasoned argument and he responds with illogical rhetorical garbage. Such is the state with so-called “conservatives” who are really nothing but Statist, big-government hacks.
...are you guys Paul nuts or just regular 1% fringers?
No more “fringe” than our founding fathers. I believe that our federal government should stick to those areas of responsibility that Article I, Section 8 and the 9th and 10th amendments limited it to. Everything else should be left up to state and local governments.
You leave up the interpretation of the Constitution to the Supreme Court (which was not even empowered by the Constitution to decide the Constitutionality of laws) but Thomas Jefferson, one of the earliest advocates of nullification (Read his KENTUCKY RESOLUTIONS), warned us about relying on these unelected federal officials to protect us about the growing power of the central government:
” ... the Federal Judiciary; an irresponsible body (for impeachment is scarcely a scarecrow), working like gravity by night and by day, gaining a little today and a little tomorrow, and advancing its noiseless step like a thief, over the field of jurisdiction, until all shall be usurped from the States, and the government of all be consolidated into one.
“When all government... in little as in great things, shall be drawn to Washington as the centre of all power, it will render powerless the checks provided of one government on another and will become as venal and oppressive as the government from which we separated.” - Thomas Jefferson (1821)
The Conservative movement of the 20th century advocated states’ rights and limited government but the movement had a detour where it approved of central government infringement as long as it was for policies of its approval. The problem is, in doing so, you abandon the principle behind states’ rights and limited, Constitutional government.
And on a forum called “FREE REPUBLIC” we have so-called “conservatives” who advocate virtually no Constitutional restrictions (all it takes is majority approval and a judical wink and nod) and a dismissal of states’ rights and limited government. It’s a bastardation of the conservative movement.
Interstate highways do not come out of State budgets moron. Also, it's spelled "system".
A true exemplar of of your level of understanding.
If I'm using 3rd grade reasoning, maybe I should tone it down to your pre-K intelligence...
It'd be one thing if they even bothered to try to sound conservative, but they don't. Classic "progressive" thinking.
“Interstate highways do not come out of State budgets moron. Also, it’s spelled “system”.
LOL. You’re the dumbass...if you had any comprehension skills, I’d repost it lol.
But you don’t.
I stated that your infantile “post Roads” interprets the Constitution in an expansive way, as you accuse me of doing.
Why? 1) because “post Roads” transforms into a national Highway system and 2) federal money sent to the states for state roads...
I slowed down for your dumb ass, hope you can comprende now lol
You choose to define “strict” when you see fit.
I’m glad you agree that Congress has no business building roads (which it technically doesn’t do — it simply gives money to states to do it)... but even that is unconstitutional. The federal government was not intended to be involved that much in domestic affairs.
As James Madison said in Federalist 45:
“The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.”
Do you believe in the concept of federalism at least?
No. It didn't. Did you miss the part were I clearly stated that TRAFFIC LAWS are STATE laws? You were the one trying to make a Federal case for stop signs.
Sorry you are trying to take that particular tack on this, but it only makes you look both stupid and desperate.
You choose to define strict when you see fit.
No. Strict is strict. If it was up to me, there'd be no NASA, FAA, or FCC either...
Of course, that's a CONSERVATIVE position, so I don't expect you to understand.