Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: roo_ster on November 18, 2008, 03:58:47 PM
-
http://www.transterrestrial.com/archives/2008/11/republican_reli.html
Republican Religiophobia
As long as I'm dredging up golden oldies on space, I might as well do one on politics as well. I've talked to and emailed (and Usenetted) a few "moderate" Republicans who were turned off by McCain's choice of Sarah Palin, because they thought the choice was simply pandering to the religious right, and they bought the caricature of her sold by the MSM. I don't agree with that (I think that there was a confluence of factors, including the desire to pick off some of Hillary! supporters), but I really do think that a) he thought that she would be a reformer like him based on her record and b) he did and does have a high regard for her intelligence and capabilities, because most people who meet her, Democrats and "liberals" included, seem to.
Anyway, I really don't understand this fear of the religious right, though I am neither religious, or "right" (in the social conservative sense). I explained why in a post about six and a half years ago. I think that it's relevant today, and in fact wish that I'd reposted it before the election (not that the fate of the nation hinges in any way on my posts).
Instantman, in reference to an article about women and the sexual revolution, says:
This kind of stuff, by the way, is the reason why a lot of Democrats who are basically in agreement with the Republican party are still afraid to vote for Republicans.
This seems to be a common attitude among many libertarians (and to the degree that labels apply, I think that one fits Glenn about as well as any), particularly the ones who approached that philosophy from the left (i.e., former Democrats). I once had an extended email discussion (back during the election) with another libertarian friend (who's also a blogger, but shall remain nameless) about how as much as he disliked the socialism of the Democrats, he felt more culturally comfortable with them. Again, this is a prevalent attitude of products of the sixties. You know, Republicans were uptight fascists, and Democrats were idealistic, free-living, and hip.
While I'm not a conservative, my own sexual and drug-taking values (and life style) tend to be. I just don't think that the government should be involved in either of these areas. But my voting pattern is that I'll occasionally vote Republican (I voted for Dole over Clinton, the only time I've ever voted for a Republican for President), but I never vote for a Democrat for any office. The last time I did so was in 1976, and I'd like that one back.
There are at least two reasons for this.
First, I've found many Republicans who are sympathetic to libertarian arguments, and in fact are often libertarians at heart, but see the Republican Party as the most practical means of achieving the goals. There may be some Democrats out there like that, but I've never run into them. That's the least important reason (partly because I may be mistaken, and have simply suffered from a limited sample space). But fundamentally, the Democratic Party, at least in its current form, seems to me to be utterly antithetical to free markets.
But the most important reason is this--while I find the anti-freedom strains of both parties equally dismaying, the Democrats are a lot better at implementing their big-government intrusions, and there's good reason to think that this will be the case even if the Republicans get full control of the government.
This is because many of the Democratic Party positions are superficially appealing, if you're ignorant of economics and have never been taught critical thinking.
Who can be against a "living wage"? What's so bad about making sure that everyone, of every skin hue, gets a fair chance at a job? Why shouldn't rich people pay a larger percentage of their income in taxes?--they can afford it. Are you opposed to clean air and water? What's wrong with you? How can you be against social security--do you want old folks to live on Kibbles and Bits?
To fight these kinds of encroachments on liberty requires a lot of effort and argument and, in the end, it often loses anyway. Consider for example, the latest assault on the First Amendment that passed the Senate today, sixty to forty. Many Republicans voted against it. I don't think any Democrats did.
[Thursday morning update: Best of the Web notes that two Democrats did vote against it--John Breaux and Ben Nelson. Good for them. They also have a hall of shame for the Republicans who voted for it.]
On the other hand, the things that libertarians like Glenn and Nameless fear that conservatives will do (e.g., in matters sexual), are so repugnant to most Americans that they'll never get made into law, and if they do, the legislators who do so will quickly get turned out of office. So, you have to ask yourself, even if you dislike the attitude of people who are uncomfortable with the sexual revolution, just what is it, realistically, that you think they'd actually do about it if you voted for them?
The bottom line for me is that Democrats have been slow-boiling the frog for decades now, and they're very good at it. I tend to favor Republicans, not because I necessarily agree with their views on morality, but because I see them as the only force that can turn down the heat on the kettle, and that they're very unlikely to get some of the more extreme policies that they may want, because the public, by and large, views them as extreme.
Nothing has happened in the interim to change my views in this regard. The real disappointment was that the Republicans gave us the worst of all worlds this election--a Democrat (in terms of his populist economic thinking and his own antipathy to the free market, despite his Joe-the-Plumber noises about "spreading the wealth") at the top of their ticket, with a running mate who was perceived (falsely, in my opinion) as being a warrior for the religious right. But that's what happens when you stupidly have open primaries, and allow the media to pick your nominee.
-
Anyway, I really don't understand this fear of the religious right, though I am neither religious, or "right" (in the social conservative sense).
I am probably not the best person to address this fear. I consider myself fairly religious, but I also believe that we live in a mostly secular society and that the State is the not the best mechanism for spreading a moral code. For example, adultery is wrong, but I don't think that adulters should be imprisoned.
There is plenty of ignorance on the religious right, but if I had to guess, I would say that the people that fear them do so because they think that the RR wants to impose their moral code through the State. What would this look like? I am not sure, but I often post over at forum called Crosswalk (http://forums.crosswalk.com/Default.aspx? (http://forums.crosswalk.com/Default.aspx?)). There are a fair number there that are comfortable with a higer level of governmental intervention into people's private lives than what we see know.
-
Glenn Beck is a libertarian now?
What universe are we now in?
-
Glenn Beck is a libertarian now?
What universe are we now in?
Where does it mention Glenn Beck? And what does that have to do with the premise of the article?
-
Glenn Beck is a libertarian now?
What universe are we now in?
Well, you are in your own, and I won't disturb you other than to point out:
Glenn Reynolds
instapundit.com
-
Glenn Beck is somewhere between conservative and libertarian. Which is to say he's libertarian but he hasn't caught the Wookie-basement-Ron-Paul-loony strain of libertarianism.
-
I am probably not the best person to address this fear. I consider myself fairly religious, but I also believe that we live in a mostly secular society and that the State is the not the best mechanism for spreading a moral code. For example, adultery is wrong, but I don't think that adulters should be imprisoned.
There is plenty of ignorance on the religious right, but if I had to guess, I would say that the people that fear them do so because they think that the RR wants to impose their moral code through the State. What would this look like? I am not sure, but I often post over at forum called Crosswalk (http://forums.crosswalk.com/Default.aspx? (http://forums.crosswalk.com/Default.aspx?)). There are a fair number there that are comfortable with a higer level of governmental intervention into people's private lives than what we see know.
Who exactly wants to make adultery illegal under the law at least in the U.S?
I think you are talking about a very small minority. When small leftist minorities are discussed, people people never take the comments so seriously.
-
Well, you are in your own, and I won't disturb you other than to point out:
Glenn Reynolds
instapundit.com
Ah. This Glenn. Not that THIS Glenn is a great libertarian.
-
Who exactly wants to make adultery illegal under the law at least in the U.S?
It all ready is in Michigan!
-
Does anyone ever get prosecuted for it?
-
Who exactly wants to make adultery illegal under the law at least in the U.S?
It all ready is in Michigan
It is under the UCMJ too, and yes people get prosecuted for it.
-
Sounds like lingering frustration that libertarians find no meaningful place in presidential elections.
-
Do civilians outside the military get prosecuted for adultery in Michigan?
I didn't think Michigan was Republican state anyway. Do you blame the "Religious Right" for that law?
IMO, it is not the "Religious Right" that is responsible for all that stuff. Most of those laws are legacies that were put in decades ago. I believe that was the case in Texas with the anti-gay law that was overturned. Too many people saw removing the law as implicit acceptance of that lifestyle and didn't consider that a law on the books that is not enforced is silly.
-
Glenn Beck is somewhere between conservative and libertarian. Which is to say he's libertarian but he hasn't caught the Wookie-basement-Ron-Paul-loony strain of libertarianism.
The same Glenn Beck who advocated metal detectors at public malls in the wake of that mall shooting that happened a few years ago? Not cite since I heard it on his XM Radio show at the time, but it hardly sounds Libertarian or even freedom oriented to me.
I was honestly waiting for him to advocate an AWB in the next breath.
Chris
-
The same Glenn Beck who advocated metal detectors at public malls in the wake of that mall shooting that happened a few years ago? Not cite since I heard it on his XM Radio show at the time, but it hardly sounds Libertarian or even freedom oriented to me.
I was honestly waiting for him to advocate an AWB in the next breath.
Chris
Everything I've heard from him has been very pro-2nd Amendment. I'm not sure if his views were different a few years ago.
-
Advocating mall metal detectors is somehow the next thing to an AWB, now? ??? A lot of people are generally friendly to gun rights, but don't necessarily understand the issue that well. Sounds like a knee-jerk reaction from a non-gunnie, who didn't really see the implications of his statement.
-
Advocating metal detectors in malls is far WORSE than an AWB.
Trust me on this, I live in a country where we have those.
-
The same Glenn Beck who advocated metal detectors at public malls in the wake of that mall shooting that happened a few years ago? Not cite since I heard it on his XM Radio show at the time, but it hardly sounds Libertarian or even freedom oriented to me.
I was honestly waiting for him to advocate an AWB in the next breath.
Chris
I didn't listen to Beck years ago, but I've caught his show occasionally in recent weeks. Maybe his view have changed since then, but he's now very pro 2nd amendment, and I have a hard time imagining him supporting mall metal detectors today. He's one of the most libertarian figures I've heard in anything resembling the mainstream of politics or media.
-
I didn't listen to Beck years ago, but I've caught his show occasionally in recent weeks. Maybe his view have changed since then, but he's now very pro 2nd amendment, and I have a hard time imagining him supporting mall metal detectors today. He's one of the most libertarian figures I've heard in anything resembling the mainstream of politics or media.
A lot of those tie-wearing mainstream 'libertarians' are just using the word to look hip. That's how I understand Glenn after listening to some of his stuff online and reading transcripts.
-
A lot of those tie-wearing mainstream 'libertarians' are just using the word to look hip. That's how I understand Glenn after listening to some of his stuff online and reading transcripts.
Interesting point-I do think there's a group in America, on the rise, that can accurately be called "Authoritarian libertarian."
-
Interesting point-I do think there's a group in America, on the rise, that can accurately be called "Authoritarian libertarian."
Please explicate. I have had similar thoughts and would like to read someone else's take.
-
Interesting point-I do think there's a group in America, on the rise, that can accurately be called "Authoritarian libertarian."
If the two terms are used to describe diametrically opposed philosophies or opposing extremes of personal freedom, then I guess the hybrid is somewhere in the middle. Isn't that kinda like where the population consensus has been all along? It just slides slightly in one direction or another but to small degrees. What I see is youth proposing freedom, frisky after escaping parental control; and then maturity supporting stability, which comes with establishing and exercising authority. This is not new...been there and done that.
-
A lot of those tie-wearing mainstream 'libertarians' are just using the word to look hip. That's how I understand Glenn after listening to some of his stuff online and reading transcripts.
Beck doesn't actually claim to be a libertarian that I've noticed. He calls himself a conservative with some libertarian views.
-
Interesting point-I do think there's a group in America, on the rise, that can accurately be called "Authoritarian libertarian."
We had a talk show guy like that in this area. He called himself a libertarian, but he was OK with smoking bans, and wasn't very good on the gun issue. He was really just a "moderate."
I think a lot of those people just decide that, since they don't fully agree with the Lefties/Dems or the Cons/Repubs, they must be libertarians. After all, every American imagines that his politics are those most conducive to freedom. That's our political dogma. Sort of like how every Christian denomination believes that they are the ones who really follow the Bible.
-
I've noticed plenty of local radio guys like that. They normally don't last a long time.
-
I think of the authoritarian libertarian as someone who uses the language of libertarians to justify invasive and controlling policies. Sometimes, they actually make sense, which is why there are enough such political beings to warrant a new label.
I think there are mainly two distinct types: Those who see their own authoritarian policies as "reasonable protections of the liberty of the people", and those who have transformed liberty from a description of how and to what extent individuals are restrained by outside forces, into an icon that is distinct from government and society.
The first is mentioned by Mr. Tactical Pants. With MTP's example, smoking bans, they would talk about "freedom from intrusion" for non-smokers who might inhale second hand smoke. Not entirely unreasonable, but hardly libertarian. And they genuinely believe that this is liberty-to be free from all those annoying things that they see other people doing.
The second type tend to confuse liberty, which is actually more a procedural issue with respect to the state, with a tangible object. This mystical "liberty" then becomes the basis for some ridiculously authoritarian policies. The government has to see all of your bank records, send police to anywhere it pleases, all being funded by your money, to "safeguard liberty", as if liberty were something other than not experiencing so much external control. And overnight, the publicly funded and extensive security network becomes the hallmark of liberty....and they will liberate the hell out of you if you threaten Liberty.
Type 2 authoritarian libertarians (in my theory, I'm just making up these types) also tend to be the ones who want to shut down unpopular churches, silence critics of social reforms, and use ridicule and "common sense/21st century science" to marginalize and eliminate the voices in society that don't fit with their scheme of liberty. Religious groups should not vote or engage in politics, because they might vote their values and thereby restrict liberty.
Redefining what liberty ought to include, and mistaking "liberty" for some magical being that exists out there in the universe apart from what we do in society, is the source of these apparently contradictory political beliefs.
That's my take, anyway, and I'd be interested to hear some other opinions on the trend.
-
and they will liberate the hell out of you if you threaten Liberty.
:laugh:
Anybody remember this old chestnut? "I'd services the h**l out of you."
-
You know, it'd be easy for me as a libertarian to say that this election shows that the Republicans must abandon the religious right and flock to the banner of 'true conservatism', which supposedly is some form of watered-down libertarianism. However, I am of the opinion that this is nonsense.
In my view, the conservatives must realize, once and for all, that whatever the conservative view is of what society should be like – what we have right now is not it.
If you are a member of the semi-mythical Religious Right, you can easily see that society around you is not what you want. The government schools promote what you view as irresponsible and immoral sexual practices, homeschooling is still frowned upon, and so forth.
If you're a gun person, you can easily see that we don’t yet have the freedom that the Founding Fathers wanted us to have. The Founders wanted us to be able to carry the arms that the average soldier carries in the field. Even if you are willing to agree to licensing and registration, it is impossible for you, under current law, to purchase an XM-8 or FN-SCAR. Period. You can't carry openly in many states, and 48 out of 50 states still require a license to carry concealed.
If you're any sort of limited government person, then clearly we don't have what you want. Government now is big. Really big.
If you're libertarian? Hahahahaha!
What we want is no longer retaining what we have. Edmund Burke and his fear of revolutionary change would be nice if society was more or less what we wanted it to be, and only a few changes were needed. But we are no longer at this point. We left this point decades ago.
We need to unite around our known common themes – free markets, individual liberty, absolute morality – and destroy the influence of the Left on our civilization.
What we require is a revolutionary movement – not one that accepts the status quo. If you accept Burkianism, then you are bound, time and time again, to nominate guys like McCain and the two Bushes.
Now, I do not mean that we must all rip our shirts off, grab our rifles, and charge at the barricades.
But we require the realization that we want an actual change. We do not want the Beast of Really Amazingly Huge Government readjusted so it wears a cross and pretends to be a conservative Beast.
I do not care if you're a libertarian, a Reaganite, or whatever. We need to unite around the fact that we are not in simple opposition to the ineptness and mismanaged of a given Administration. We must unite around the fact that we oppose the System – Washington, the media who praise it, and the corporations that slurp at its tough. We must unite around the fact that we are in moral opposition to what they do.
And we must abandon the intellectual legacy of Edmund Burke. Kill it. Kill it with fire.
Repeat after me:
Burkianism leads to moderation.
Moderation leads to compromise.
And compromise leads to suffering.
-
Authoritarian libertarian is an oxymoron. If it is worthwhile concept, it needs a better label.
Then there is the issue of polarity. Some insist that a libertarian is an unreasonable anarchist by definition, while all variants require some sissified special label. I prefer the kind that takes it all into consideration, has some basis in guiding principle, but simply chooses what makes sense in the context in question.