Why I Left the Anti-War Right

FrontPageMagazine ^ | 2/09/04 | Anthony Gancarski

[jokar]

read this later

[westerfield]

Talk about being a flake, it appears that this writer has decided to change his political ideology for the upteenth time because he received a snotty little note from Justin Raimondo refusing to run one of his columns. I cant help but wonder if his defection to Front Page Mag was due to their higher pay scale as much as anything else.

[liberallarry]

This author sounds completely confused and dangerously malleable

I had exactly the opposite take.

The guy is young. He's willing and able to learn. He's not afraid to state his views honestly, to research his positions when in doubt, to admit error when he sees it.

He clearly is an independent thinker and is to be commended.

[weegee]

The epiphany apparently began with Raimondo's personal attack on W.

The take that I got was the Raimondo found the public support for Michael Moore and Howard Dean to be more sacred to his "cause" than any public support for the President of the United States. This double standard is what brought the writer's epiphany around.

Raimondo has claimed that he also protested Bill Clinton's wars yet I don't recall the media (local, national, international, underground, etc.) ever promoting a single AntiWar.com protest until after 2001.

If people are not "honest" about why they attack a President, and they are willing to overlook all sorts of transgressions, and they are willing to partner up with unscrupulous agitators it should make anyone "question" just what the antiwar movement really is.

[rmlew]

Did you even read the piece?
Anthony Gancarski made it very clear that changing positions took time and cost him.
BTW. $25/article or $100/article doesn't pay the rent.

[rmlew]

Ping

[tdadams]

I read the whole thing, thank you. Did you read all the other comments here that basically agree with me??

[rmlew]

I read the comments, but yours ticked me off.

Calling him a sellout when he writes a full article of explanation is intellectually lazy.

[rmlew]

There is nothing silly about reading enemy literature or even finding some interesting arguements.
You don't grow by reading the same stuff over.

He is young, but does that make him silly?
Perhaps he simply is not so prideful as to believe that he is always correct about everything.

[tdadams]

If reading someone's opinion ticks you off, be thankful you have no bigger issue than that to worry about. I didn't say I only thought he was a sellout. His writing was sloppy and incoherent. His political acumen seems shallow and undeveloped. He comes across as someone who wants to be taken seriously but is so naive you feel sorry for him. Should I go on?

[rmlew]

What do you expect from 20-year-old writters?

He should read Plato, Polybius, Cicero, Cato, Pliny, St. Ausgustine, St. Thomas Aquinas, Machiavelli, Hobbes, Locke, Montesque, Burke, Jefferson, Hamilton, Jay, Madison, J Adams, JQ Adams, De Toqueville, JS Mills, Mises, Hayek, Kirk, and Strauss. For the last fifety years, I would suggest Nash's The Conservative Intellectual Movement since 1945. Only then, will I take his work seriously.