Post by: MicroBalrog on March 03, 2005, 10:18:52 PM
By Kelse Moen
At the Republican National Convention, while Sen. Joe Lieberman yukked it up about the absurdity of a pro-war, Keynesian Democrat like him hanging out with a bunch of pro-war, Keynesian Republicans, an authentically conservative convention was being held simultaneously only a few miles away.
The event was Rep. Ron Pauls Rally for the Republic. Paul ran a contrarian campaign for the Republican nomination this year on a platform of individual liberty, a foreign policy of non-interventionism, a gold-backed monetary system, and a return to constitutional government. That message brought 12,000 libertarians, constitutionalists, hippies, Burkeans, pot-smokers, gun-owners, homeschoolers, anarchists and me to fill up the Target Center in downtown Minneapolis for a celebration of that one thing we could all agree on: that we each have the inalienable right to live however we want.
It would be hard to find a more striking contrast between Pauls convention and the RNC. The latter was never anything more than a rehearsed recitation of talking points impressive only for their monumental vapidity.
Conversely, the Rally for the Republic was one big cauldron of good-natured disagreement. And its audience was remarkably informed the mere mention of the Austrian theory of the business cycle led to an eruption of applause. The loudest boos came not from vague allusions to the opposition but from any mention of the Federal Reserve. Meanwhile, the most substantive thing to come out of the RNC was Gov. Sarah Palins distinction between a hockey mom and a pit bull.
The culmination of the day was Ron Pauls speech. It was nothing I hadnt heard before but what made this such a powerful event was the audience, the 12,000 people who burst into applause as Paul took the stage.
For years, libertarians have tried to construct a coherent movement to fight for their ideals. They created the Libertarian Party, which today exists only as a parody of itself. Attempts to form an alliance with the anti-war left during the 1960s and the Buchananite right during the 1990s came to nothing.
But now with the emergence of Ron Paul, a tangible movement is taking shape. It is not like the cult of personality that surrounds Barack Obama; it is a movement based not on the man himself but on the principles for which he stands.
The so-called American Century belonged to the likes of John McCain and Barack Obama collectivist politicians eager to extend the coercive arm of government into every nook and cranny both at home and abroad. Yet the American spirit belongs to Ron Paul and his supporters.
Theirs is the dont-tread-on-me populism of the Founding Fathers, of Robert Taft and Sinclair Lewis and the America First Committee.
They are the true heirs of John McCains slogan, country first: they are the ones who would rather focus on South Dakota than South Ossetia. They are more concerned with Main Street than the Green Zone, but they do this as neighbors, not masters.
Their message is simple: come home, America. They are begging the country in general and the Republicans in particular to reject the philosophy of death and taxes that defined the 20th century and to allow for the traditional American philosophy of freedom and community to define the 21st.
After the hundred years of statism that began with William McKinley and culminated with George W. Bush, it is easy to be pessimistic. But coming out of the Target Center, I plainly saw that the flame of liberty has been dimmed but not extinguished. Perhaps Ron Paul and his supporters still have a fighting chance.
Kelse Moen is a College senior from Sharon, Mass. He is president of the College Republicans.
Post by: The Annoyed Man on March 03, 2005, 10:18:52 PM
Post by: Gewehr98 on March 03, 2005, 10:18:52 PM
Or I could save some time and effort and simply say it's a non-factor, with respect to Ron Paul actually getting elected into the Oval Office this fall.
Entertaining, though.
Post by: MicroBalrog on March 03, 2005, 10:18:52 PM
how many states ballots are the libs on?
Since this is not about hte success of the Libertarian Debating Society/Party, I don't see how the fact they're on 44 ballots is relevant to anything.
Quote
Or I could save some time and effort and simply say it's a non-factor, with respect to Ron Paul actually getting elected into the Oval Office this fall.
Yes, an organization whose goal is not the election of a candidate who is not running cannot get him elected. Thank you for that insight.
Post by: The Annoyed Man on March 03, 2005, 10:18:52 PM
Post by: MicroBalrog on March 03, 2005, 10:18:52 PM
what candidates(s) are on 44 ballots? surely not paul
Is Ron Paul a Libertarian candidate?
Is Ron Paul running?
Is the CFL's purpose to elect Ron Paul to any office in the land?
Hint, the answer to any of these questions is not 'Yes'.
Post by: The Annoyed Man on March 03, 2005, 10:18:52 PM
Post by: longeyes on March 03, 2005, 10:18:52 PM
Post by: MicroBalrog on March 03, 2005, 10:18:52 PM
got ya ron paul is NOT the libertarian man. the article and the last few months of political auto eroticism not withstanding. you has a lot of us fooled about what your goal/intentions were
There's a difference between 'libertarians' and the Libertarian Party.
Post by: The Annoyed Man on March 03, 2005, 10:18:52 PM
got ya ron paul is NOT the libertarian man. the article and the last few months of political auto eroticism not withstanding. you has a lot of us fooled about what your goal/intentions were
There's a difference between 'libertarians' and the Libertarian Party.
in light of you posting an article in which pauls "movement"was featured could you elaborate? in a way that those of us whose p olitical experience has hindered our sophistication can understand
Post by: MicroBalrog on March 03, 2005, 10:18:52 PM
The CFL is now dedicated towards advancing the 'cause' within the boundaries of the GOP, taking the excited, starry-eyed 'libertarians' of the last primaries, and educating them in the rules of political conduct, and training a huge amount of precinct captains, local comittee chairmen, and volunteers - in essence, switching people from the brown fursuit to the three-piece suit, while also raising money for candidates like B. J. Lawson, Paul Broun, and, of course, Ron Paul.
Post by: Gewehr98 on March 03, 2005, 10:18:52 PM
Out of 271 Million Americans?
Interesting.
80,588,000 voters turned out for the 2006 Federal elections.
Unless they "stole" the election from AlGore in Florida (again), 300,000 Libertarian votes nationwide are a tempest in a teapot, I'd wager.
Post by: MicroBalrog on March 03, 2005, 10:18:52 PM
Quote
Unless they stole the election from AlGore (again), 300,000 Libertarian votes nationwide are a tempest in a teapot, I'd wager.
Which is exactly my point.
Post by: Gewehr98 on March 03, 2005, 10:18:52 PM
Post by: MicroBalrog on March 03, 2005, 10:18:52 PM
Ok, that's just plain clutching at straws, and really doesn't engender my confidence of the Paulista camp or the Libertarian "movement".
What is? Me agreeing with you?
Post by: Gewehr98 on March 03, 2005, 10:18:52 PM
It didn't sound like you were agreeing with me for a second there.
Post by: MicroBalrog on March 03, 2005, 10:18:52 PM
Ok, I'm a bit slow.
It didn't sound like you were agreeing with me for a second there.
It didn't sound like you were agreeing with me for a second there.
It is a truth universally acknowledged that the Libertarian Party is extremely small.
It is also generally agreed upon that the number of people that self-identify as libertarian is as high as 10-12% of the population.
The question arises, then, how does a group of this size achieve success (defined as getting their favored policies made into law?).
For libertarians, two strategies have emerged- one, releasing ideas that more mainstream movements later pick up on (school vouchers, homeschooling, the Fair Tax) - and two, which is only now picking up some steam, becoming more politically active within the existing party structure.
It is true that some of these Paulistas are a bit... wacky. This is to be expected with what is, essentially, a movement advocating for peaceful revolution.
As a political movement grows, it is supported, first, by ivory tower intellectuals, later by wackos and the disaffected, and only THEN do other people sometimes sign up.
Post by: Manedwolf on March 03, 2005, 10:18:52 PM
Which is what has occurred. You really need to realize that.
Crowds of people chanting that a major media outlet "sucks" is not going to get them to cover your movement favorably. You would think that would be common sense.
And yes, they did that in Minnesota, when a Fox reporter quite nicely tried to ask a bunch of them about their movement. The reporter was bellowed at, the libertarian/Paulian whatever bellowed "FOX NEWS SUCKS" and then the crowd picked it up as they gave a finger to the camera. That is what the mainstream audience saw of your movement in their living rooms. How do you think they now see libertarians? Really?
I think your movement has become a political punchline. Ought to come up with a new name and start over, and this time realize that in the YouTube generation, all it takes is a few "wacko" incidents that remain un-denounced (no rapid media response of "They're not with us!") to get your entire movement pushed off to the kiddie table by the mainstream.
Until you develop the political acumen to do that, you're not providing anything to the political scene but material for John Stewart and late-night comedians to joke about. You will not change anything, and will instead hurt the causes you're trying for, setting them back by causing them people to not take them seriously...because they don't take you seriously. And that's a harsh reality.
Post by: MicroBalrog on March 03, 2005, 10:18:52 PM
If anything, Ron Paul has won out big.
2Swap is my witness on November 5th, I told her: "Today, Ron Paul won. Even if he never wins another elected office in his life, even if he dies today of a heart attack.."
He has taken his ideas and taken them to a level of popularity that may not win him anything, that later candidates and later activists will be able to build upon.
Regarding you claim of the movement having been marginalized, I think it's too early to judge that within a few months.
Mark my words though I think we're going to outlive the modern system.
Post by: Perd Hapley on March 03, 2005, 10:18:52 PM
Quote
Meanwhile, the most substantive thing to come out of the RNC was Gov. Sarah Palins distinction between a hockey mom and a pit bull.
Perhaps the author should just admit that he didn't keep up with the Republican convention, rather than making an ignorant comment about a joke in a political speech. Post by: MicroBalrog on March 03, 2005, 10:18:52 PM
Quote
Perhaps the author should just admit that he didn't keep up the Republican campaign, rather than making ignorant comments about a joke in a political speech.
Wasn't the point of party conventions these days just to have a nice ritualized party for the media, rather than actually make world-shattering decisions?
Post by: Perd Hapley on March 03, 2005, 10:18:52 PM
Post by: taurusowner on March 03, 2005, 10:18:52 PM
Post by: Perd Hapley on March 03, 2005, 10:18:52 PM
I hope someday we can have another good party come along, that can get their message out to the public. But I'm not holding my breath.
Post by: MicroBalrog on March 03, 2005, 10:18:52 PM
They've build a springboard. They raised a whole lot of money - RP has four times more money left over from his campaign than any big L libertarian has ever raised in any Presidential race.
If they can get their people into precinct comittees and caucuses across the country, then that's going to be the beginning of a wonderful friendship.
Post by: Jamisjockey on March 03, 2005, 10:18:52 PM
Until Libertarians learn how to package their views in a way that makes the average "raised on CNN" American understand and appreciate them, they will get no where. The Libertarians are seen as wackos mainly because they and their candidates act and talk like wackos. Until that changes, they're going nowhere, and they're dragging a lot of their better ideas with them.
Yup Yup. Unfortunately, Joe and Jane Sixpack don't realize that most of what they believe lines up with the libertarain point of view.
Most people hate the government. Its a fat bloated beauracracy. They don't like taxes. They don't like inflation.
Post by: freakazoid on March 03, 2005, 10:18:52 PM
Quote
And yes, they did that in Minnesota, when a Fox reporter quite nicely tried to ask a bunch of them about their movement. The reporter was bellowed at, the libertarian/Paulian whatever bellowed "FOX NEWS SUCKS" and then the crowd picked it up as they gave a finger to the camera. That is what the mainstream audience saw of your movement in their living rooms.
Yeah, what a bunch of wackos.
Anytime one of the protesters refused to talk with him he would say that they must not believe in the freedom of speech. And then once they stated chanting "FOX News sucks" he was acting like it was really dangerous for him to even be there.
Post by: The Annoyed Man on March 03, 2005, 10:18:52 PM
Until Libertarians learn how to package their views in a way that makes the average "raised on CNN" American understand and appreciate them, they will get no where. The Libertarians are seen as wackos mainly because they and their candidates act and talk like wackos. Until that changes, they're going nowhere, and they're dragging a lot of their better ideas with them.
Yup Yup. Unfortunately, Joe and Jane Sixpack don't realize that most of what they believe lines up with the libertarain point of view.
Most people hate the government. Its a fat bloated beauracracy. They don't like taxes. They don't like inflation.
as someone who actually voted , on a REAL ballot, for a libertarian presidential candidate i believe that the whackjobs and various forms of "anarchist" that are drawn and seemingly embraced by the libertarian party have poisoned its image. perhaps beyond recovery.a shame that.
and how does one claim to be an anarchist whiule living with/off mommy and daddy anyway
Post by: Manedwolf on March 03, 2005, 10:18:52 PM
Until Libertarians learn how to package their views in a way that makes the average "raised on CNN" American understand and appreciate them, they will get no where. The Libertarians are seen as wackos mainly because they and their candidates act and talk like wackos. Until that changes, they're going nowhere, and they're dragging a lot of their better ideas with them.
Yup Yup. Unfortunately, Joe and Jane Sixpack don't realize that most of what they believe lines up with the libertarain point of view.
Most people hate the government. Its a fat bloated beauracracy. They don't like taxes. They don't like inflation.
Well, that's the failing of libertarians. They don't know where to stop, and don't know when to cut off the wackos among them.
As follows:
"Government should be smaller, taxes should be less and simpler." (In general) "Yeah, I agree with that..."
"We need to dissolve the fed and the IRS and go on the gold standard!" (Paul) "Uhhh...that's kinda extreme"
"9/11 was America's fault" (Somewhat Paul, he blames us) "HEY! NOW I'm offended!"
"9/11 was an inside job" (the extreme and not exluded sorts) "OMG these people are insane, get them away from me!"
See? When asked later, now that that's their impression, "Libertarians are anarchist nuts who think 9/11 was a conspiracy".
They just don't get how to keep a message tight and how to disclaim the fringe.
Post by: The Annoyed Man on March 03, 2005, 10:18:52 PM
Post by: Physics on March 03, 2005, 10:18:52 PM
As I've said:
They've build a springboard. They raised a whole lot of money - RP has four times more money left over from his campaign than any big L libertarian has ever raised in any Presidential race.
If they can get their people into precinct comittees and caucuses across the country, then that's going to be the beginning of a wonderful friendship.
They've build a springboard. They raised a whole lot of money - RP has four times more money left over from his campaign than any big L libertarian has ever raised in any Presidential race.
If they can get their people into precinct comittees and caucuses across the country, then that's going to be the beginning of a wonderful friendship.
As someone who still gets the emails, I can assure you, this is exactly what they have been trying to do. Ron Paul himself will not run again. His movement is definitely still going, like you said, at the precinct level. The RP supporters are not dumb, they may be a little bit crazy, but they know the rules, and will do anything to get a Paulitician elected.
I think the reason for the unpopularity was the desperation with which the RP supporters conducted themselves. Everything had to be over the top, to get the attention of the media, so many times on the RP forums, did I hear "All coverage is good coverage, and I'd cringe as someone would relate in internet ebonics how they had just debated with an "idiot" (their view not mine) democrat.
I think the RP movement mostly caused it's own failure, by wearing the wookie suits and throwing snowballs at Sean Hannity. People are not going to vote for a candidate because a mob with pitchforks and torches says that they should. That said, these were the rabid RP supporters, not all of us were/are like that.
Post by: freakazoid on March 03, 2005, 10:18:52 PM
Post by: Perd Hapley on March 03, 2005, 10:18:52 PM
Other than my Dad, who has no idea what a Wookie is.
Post by: MicroBalrog on March 03, 2005, 10:18:52 PM
What is this thing about someone in a Wookie costume? I have heard it referenced before, and HTG has it as his avatar.
Search "Ridley Report" on the Youtube.
Post by: Manedwolf on March 03, 2005, 10:18:52 PM
What is this thing about someone in a Wookie costume? I have heard it referenced before, and HTG has it as his avatar.
It's one of the publicity stunts they pulled here. Standing by the road in a wookie costume with Ron Paul signs, because they were pretending to be the rebels against the Bush empire or something, I don't know.
They showed it on the news here, the anchors were laughing their asses off, and the whole thing kind of stuck. I think one of the late night shows picked on it as well. Don't know.
Post by: Manedwolf on March 03, 2005, 10:18:52 PM
What is this thing about someone in a Wookie costume? I have heard it referenced before, and HTG has it as his avatar.
Search "Ridley Report" on the Youtube.
Ugh. That guy is persona non grata here.
He's an egotist who keeps trying to get in trouble. After his last stunt, "deliberately defying a curfew on parks" meant to keep addicts from doing their thing at 3am and leaving needles around, the paper was full of "GO HOME" and "GO BACK TO TEXAS", people furious that he'd wasted police presence to babysit his tantrum, when those police should have been elsewhere doing needed police things.
That is precisely what I mean about bad PR. The local image of Free Staters and libertarians in general is that clown who keeps confronting the cops and mugging for the camera. If he wanted to "free" something, he'd go do it in Boston. But that would be a challenge. It's easier to hassle and cause scenes and annoy the people here for his own personal ego whatevers. And it's made people downright angry.
Oh, yeah. Ridley almost caused a bar owner to lose his liquor license because he filmed one of his shows outside said bar, with a bunch of people open-carrying while drinking and showing off their guns. The bar owner didn't know. The video ended up on WMUR news. The liquor board sent investigators, and the bar owner almost lost their business.
Libertarians need to throw that kind of clown out on their ass and put out a Not Welcome sign, or they're going nowhere.
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on March 03, 2005, 10:18:52 PM
What is this thing about someone in a Wookie costume? I have heard it referenced before, and HTG has it as his avatar.
It was a somewhat common theme among the Paul supporters to portray themselves as the rebels in Star Wars, fighting agaisnt the evil Imperial whatever.It went so far that some of them donned Star Wars costumes. I found a picture of one such Paulian costume wearer. It made me laugh. Hard. So I snitched it and made it my avatar.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/patternfilms/2179173334/
Post by: MicroBalrog on March 03, 2005, 10:18:52 PM
Juror's Rights Wookie
Post by: freakazoid on March 03, 2005, 10:18:52 PM
Quote
After his last stunt, "deliberately defying a curfew on parks" meant to keep addicts from doing their thing at 3am and leaving needles around,
Good for him.
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on March 03, 2005, 10:18:52 PM
Post by: MicroBalrog on March 03, 2005, 10:18:52 PM
"Being active in your beliefs" is only as good or as bad as your beliefs themselves are. Being active in stupid beliefs is no good at all. Sounds like that's what this guy was doing.
Opposing curfews is now stupid?
Nevertheless, I disagree with your notion. I believe in a healthy civil society, people are active for all sorts of beliefs, even those I disagree with, and that is a GOOD THING, unless of course we're talking about some unspeakably evil stuff like Neo-Nazism.
Post by: Perd Hapley on March 03, 2005, 10:18:52 PM
After his last stunt, "deliberately defying a curfew on parks" meant to keep addicts from doing their thing at 3am and leaving needles around,
That's not a curfew. Most parks I've seen are closed from dusk to dawn.
Post by: Manedwolf on March 03, 2005, 10:18:52 PM
After his last stunt, "deliberately defying a curfew on parks" meant to keep addicts from doing their thing at 3am and leaving needles around,
That's not a curfew. Most parks I've seen are closed from dusk to dawn.
That's what I'd meant, yes. The parks are closed from something like 9pm to 6am because the only thing going on in the middle of the night was stuff like the occasional drug deal or prostitution, or kids breaking stuff. The citizens actually ASKED for that.
But that didn't matter to the carpetbaggers who decided that NH citizens didn't know what was best for them, and needed to be "freed" of what they voted for.
See the problem? They don't even realize they act like nanny state liberals. And I see that from libertarians on a national level, their version of liberal elitism. An attitude that Americans are too stupid to understand freedom and need to be "freed", regardless of what they decided themselves, what they like, any of that.
That does not win friends.
Post by: MicroBalrog on March 03, 2005, 10:18:52 PM
You think the NRA are being a bunch of carpetbaggers for opposing Prop H, too?
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on March 03, 2005, 10:18:52 PM
That's one of several things the libertarians are going to have to figure out if they want to become a major player in American politics. Most American voters want sensible laws that keep their community clean, safe, and livable. That's why we have government in the first place.
Post by: Manedwolf on March 03, 2005, 10:18:52 PM
It's interesting that you think that nobody should oppose a law that the majority of a population in a given state has voted for.
You think the NRA are being a bunch of carpetbaggers for opposing Prop H, too?
You think the NRA are being a bunch of carpetbaggers for opposing Prop H, too?
Apples and oranges.
By the way, I poked about on one of the libertarian boards here.
Someone among them posted warning them not to back the violent tax protesters who threatened to kill law enforcement agents' families, the guy who was screaming "show me the law" with bombs and guns all over until the Marshals arrested him. That it would destroy them in the public eye if they backed someone who "threatened to kill people as long as he can remember".
He was shouted down.
Thus goes the movement. Don't know what battles to choose and which are downright stupid. So it won't go anywhere.
Post by: The Annoyed Man on March 03, 2005, 10:18:52 PM
Post by: MicroBalrog on March 03, 2005, 10:18:52 PM
Quote
Apples and oranges.
From the viewpoint of your ideology.
Post by: Manedwolf on March 03, 2005, 10:18:52 PM
Quote
Apples and oranges.
From the viewpoint of your ideology.
Which is one of the two major parties.
Suit yourself. Until the libertarians get some sense of how to exclude fringe elements, how to unify a message, and in a sense, how to grow up, they will be only one thing.
Irrelevant.
Post by: The Annoyed Man on March 03, 2005, 10:18:52 PM
Post by: freakazoid on March 03, 2005, 10:18:52 PM
Quote
Suit yourself. Until the libertarians get some sense of how to exclude fringe elements, how to unify a message, and in a sense, how to grow up, they will be only one thing.
So basically dumb down there message for the masses.
Quote
Someone among them posted warning them not to back the violent tax protesters who threatened to kill law enforcement agents' families, the guy who was screaming "show me the law" with bombs and guns all over until the Marshals arrested him. That it would destroy them in the public eye if they backed someone who "threatened to kill people as long as he can remember".
About time some people stopped letting the .gov roll all over them.
What do you think of things like the Boston Tea party? Or the entire American Revolution?
Post by: longeyes on March 03, 2005, 10:18:52 PM
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on March 03, 2005, 10:18:52 PM
Quote
Suit yourself. Until the libertarians get some sense of how to exclude fringe elements, how to unify a message, and in a sense, how to grow up, they will be only one thing.
So basically dumb down there message for the masses.
Post by: Perd Hapley on March 03, 2005, 10:18:52 PM
Quote
Suit yourself. Until the libertarians get some sense of how to exclude fringe elements, how to unify a message, and in a sense, how to grow up, they will be only one thing.
So basically dumb down there message for the masses.
Because representative government works on consent, not on simply dictating a view point. Which is an ironic difference between the major parties and most of the third parties. Third party folks, God bless 'em, are devoted to nailing down the most pure ideology. Meanwhile, the big parties put together imperfect platforms that they can get enough people to settle for. Sad, but what can you do?
Post by: Manedwolf on March 03, 2005, 10:18:52 PM
Quote
Someone among them posted warning them not to back the violent tax protesters who threatened to kill law enforcement agents' families, the guy who was screaming "show me the law" with bombs and guns all over until the Marshals arrested him. That it would destroy them in the public eye if they backed someone who "threatened to kill people as long as he can remember".
About time some people stopped letting the .gov roll all over them.
What do you think of things like the Boston Tea party? Or the entire American Revolution?
Let me clarify again. The guy threatened to have the families of law enforcement officers killed if they arrested him for tax fraud.
Post by: freakazoid on March 03, 2005, 10:18:52 PM
Quote
The guy threatened to have the families of law enforcement officers killed if they arrested him for tax fraud.
Linky? Also you should have quotation marks around tax fraud,
Post by: yesitsloaded on March 03, 2005, 10:18:52 PM
Post by: roo_ster on March 03, 2005, 10:18:52 PM
One of Buckley's great triumphs was the fusion of small-L libertarians with conservatives in opposition to the ever-growing state.
The second, less well-known effort of Buckley's was to exile from respectable conservatism the fringe nutters: John Birchers, American Mercury-types, etc.
The resulting ideological conservative movement was slightly smaller, but much more effective, resulting in a Goldwater nomination and eventually a Reagan presidency.
Before anybody is gonna want to fuse with Libertarians, they are going to have to clean house and hang up the wookie suits.
Post by: Perd Hapley on March 03, 2005, 10:18:52 PM
I still don't get that rule...
Am I missing something?
Post by: yesitsloaded on March 03, 2005, 10:18:52 PM
Post by: GigaBuist on March 03, 2005, 10:18:52 PM
Quote
Third party folks, God bless 'em, are devoted to nailing down the most pure ideology. Meanwhile, the big parties put together imperfect platforms that they can get enough people to settle for.
That right there is the crux of the problem when it comes to the Libertarian party or any other 3rd party. They're so involved in promoting an ideal that they alienate people that might support them in 90% of all things. It's almost like party purity reigns above party popularity in their circles.
Post by: MicroBalrog on March 03, 2005, 10:18:52 PM
Quote
One of Buckley's great triumphs was the fusion of small-L libertarians with conservatives in opposition to the ever-growing state.
Buckley? Opposition to the ever-growing state? Is this the same Buckley we speak of?
Post by: roo_ster on March 03, 2005, 10:18:52 PM
Quote
One of Buckley's great triumphs was the fusion of small-L libertarians with conservatives in opposition to the ever-growing state.
Buckley? Opposition to the ever-growing state? Is this the same Buckley we speak of?
Yes, it is.
Without him and his work, it would be larger. He & his buds did the work of making conservatism and the idea of limited government respectable again.
Recall, he started National Review in the mid-1950s, when almost all policritters and polite society was united in a point of view that viewed ever-expanding gov't a good and natural thing. New Deal, Fair Deal, etc.
Quote from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Review
...The Republican party had effectively marginalized its remaining conservative members by the 1950s. Although a few Republican statesmen such as Senator Robert Taft of Ohio maintained a rear-guard action against the growth of the state during Roosevelt's New Deal, the party was firmly in the camp of its relatively liberal and pro-government Eastern establishment...
...Buckley and Frank Meyer also promoted the idea of fusionism, whereby different schools of conservatives, including libertarians, would work together to combat what were seen as their common opponents...
...Buckley and Frank Meyer also promoted the idea of fusionism, whereby different schools of conservatives, including libertarians, would work together to combat what were seen as their common opponents...
NR's founding statement:
Lets Face it: Unlike Vienna, it seems altogether possible that did National Review not exist, no one would have invented it. The launching of a conservative weekly journal of opinion in a country widely assumed to be a bastion of conservatism at first glance looks like a work of supererogation, rather like publishing a royalist weekly within the walls of Buckingham Palace. It is not that of course; if National Review is superfluous, it is so for very different reasons: It stands athwart history, yelling Stop, at a time when no other is inclined to do so, or to have much patience with those who so urge it."
["History" defined as the ever-growing power of the state relative to the individual--jfruser]
"In the United States at this time liberalism is not only the dominant but even the sole intellectual tradition. For it is the plain fact that nowadays there are no conservative or reactionary ideas in general circulation... the conservative impulse and the reactionary impulse do not... express themselves in ideas but only... in irritable mental gestures which seek to resemble ideas."
----Lionel Trilling, 1950
It is through the work of Buckley and his kind that the USA is not just a larger, polyglot reflection of the EU.
Such work is not and will never be 100% complete or thorough. Struggle is the expectation for those that champion civilization and the dignity and sovereignty of the individual.
Post by: MicroBalrog on March 03, 2005, 10:18:52 PM
And if they deem Soviet power a menace to our freedom (as I happen to), they will have to support large armies and air forces, atomic energy, central intelligence, war production boards, and the attendant of centralization of power in Washington Even with Truman at the reins of it all."
This is the man whom you depict as a champion of individual liberty?
Post by: Manedwolf on March 03, 2005, 10:18:52 PM
"&we have to accept Big Government for the duration for neither an offensive nor defensive war can be waged given our present government skills, except through the instrument of a totalitarian bureaucracy within our shores&
Take deliberately truncated statements out of context much?
Post by: MicroBalrog on March 03, 2005, 10:18:52 PM
http://www.lewrockwell.com/gordon/gordon35.html
Post by: Manedwolf on March 03, 2005, 10:18:52 PM
You might as well be pointing to zionist-illuminati-ufos.com.
I am not reading any trash on that site.
Post by: MicroBalrog on March 03, 2005, 10:18:52 PM
You might as well be pointing to zionist-illuminati-ufos.com.
I am not reading any trash on that site.
Riiight.
Post by: roo_ster on March 03, 2005, 10:18:52 PM
You might as well be pointing to zionist-illuminati-ufos.com.
I am not reading any trash on that site.
Riiight.
I'm with MW.
Lew is a Lewn.
Post by: MicroBalrog on March 03, 2005, 10:18:52 PM
You might as well be pointing to zionist-illuminati-ufos.com.
I am not reading any trash on that site.
Riiight.
I'm with MW.
Lew is a Lewn.
Even if you were write, which you're not, Lew is not the author of that article.