UPDATED: Liberty’s Civilizational Dimension

Foreign Policy,History,IMMIGRATION,Left-Liberalism,libertarianism,Liberty,Multiculturalism,Nationhood,Old Right,Paleoconservatism,Paleolibertarianism,Political Philosophy,Republicans,Ron Paul

LIBERTY & CIVILIZATION. In the post “STRASSEL’s Non Sequitur,” it was pointed out that whether Ron Paul’s statements about Michele Bachmann and Rick Santorum were true or not, “Paul has taken a classic Chris-Matthews kind of ad hominem swipe against Bachmann: she hates Muslims. Santorum hates gays and Muslims. Siding with the Left by adopting its arguments may be situationally advantageous, but it will backfire on a Republican candidate in the long run. This tactic, even if it was tantamount to a not-so-funny joke, damages Ron Paul’s effectiveness from the vantage point of conservative libertarians who think that liberty cannot be reduced to the non-aggression axiom and has a cultural and civilizational dimension.”

In their demands for an explanations, my libertarian readers seemed to forget that “conservative libertarians” are the majority who matter.

This writer is a paleo-libertarian; a libertarian of the Right. If libertarianism is ever to appeal to middle America, it is this libertarianism, as it is rooted in the founding ideas, which is also why I prefer classical liberalism as a philosophical label.

As I pointed out in “Libertarianism Lite,” “A certain establishment-endorsed libertarianism is currently being touted on the Fox News and Business channels as the only legitimate brand of libertarianism. This life-style libertarianism, or libertarianism-lite, as I call it, tends to conflate libertinism with liberty, and appeals to hippies of all ages, provided they remain juveniles forever.”

These sinecured TV types appeal to middle America not at all. “Ordinary, gun-toting, homeschooling, bible-thumping Middle Americans remain unmoved by people who draw their paycheques from foundations, think tanks, and academia, and wax orgiastic about MTV and Dennis Rodman. This stuff might appear sophisticated, but it is reductive and shallow—a post-graduate cleverness that lacks philosophical depth.”

More crucially: If you are driving a libertarianism that hates the whites BHO described derisively as clinging to their bibles, bigotries and guns—you are a marginal and insignificant force in American politics, and so you will remain.

True, salt-of-the-earth America (the founding stock of this great nation) is diminishing fast thanks to immigration central planning: mass immigration from the third world.

In “The Sequel to ‘Suicide of A Superpower’” I wrote: “…almost all the immigrants replacing the host population in the U.S. come from ‘Asia, Africa, and Latin America.’ Given America’s preference for welfare-dependent, third-world immigrants, pillage politics will proliferate. Thirty years on, when the Rubicon is crossed, most Americans will be poorer, less educated, and more welfare-dependent. One party will represent this majority. This party will serve as an instrument of perpetual oppression of the minority by a politically powerful majority. … America is destined to degenerate into a dominant-party state.”

The party of choice for this socially engineered America will never ever be Republican or libertarian leaning (capital or lower case “l”). Never ever.

A candidate who dismisses the national questions, namely immigration, affirmative action, the centrality to America of Christianity and the English language, etc.—fails to appreciate the civilizational dimension of ordered liberty.

Like it or not, the libertarian non-aggression axiom has a cultural and civilizational dimension, stripped of which it has no hope of being restored. I’m not saying that in her fumbling iterations on Islam Ms. Bachmann evinces such an understanding; far from it. But Bachmann is instinctively using Islam and Jihad as proxies for arguments that have become politically too dangerous to make.

For a conservative candidate to mock individuals who do so is a grave error.

UPDATE: “Two new polls show that Ron Paul is now the undisputed leader in Iowa, while Newt Gingrich has deflated and Rick Perry may be on the verge of making a small comeback.”

Insider Advantage (12/18)

Ron Paul 24%
Mitt Romney 18%
Rick Perry 16%
Newt Gingrich 13%
Michele Bachmann 10%
Rick Santorum 3%
Jon Huntsman 4%


like tweet google+ recommend Print Friendlyprint

12 thoughts on “UPDATED: Liberty’s Civilizational Dimension

  1. Nebojsa Malic

    George W. Bush did the greatest favor imaginable to jihad when he launched the Iraq invasion in 2003. At that point it became possible for Islamophiles to dismiss jihad as a propaganda construct of the warmongering Empire (which it wasn’t). What we have today is not a world in which America is at war with militant Islam, but something far worse: a world in which the American Empire is pretending that jihad doesn’t exist, because it is still hoping to use it as a weapon against traditional nation-states and regional rivals. I don’t believe Dr. Paul would take up this project if he were elected President, whatever else he might think.

  2. Trilby

    “Bachman is instinctively using Islam and Jihad as proxies…”. Ilana, you probably saw that video of John Liebowitz, ‘scuse me, Stewart, laughing at the way Bachmann, Newt, Romney, Santorum, & Perry bowed down to Israel at that Jewish-sponsored forum. Horrible self-degradation. Paul wasn’t there because they refused to invite him…Bachmann was, because she’s just a neo-con. No more and no less.

    [The above does nothing to change my observation in the post.]

  3. robert

    “A certain establishment-endorsed libertarianism is currently being touted on the Fox News and Business channels as the only legitimate brand of libertarianism. This life-style libertarianism, or libertarianism-lite, as I call it, tends to conflate libertinism with liberty, and appeals to hippies of all ages, provided they remain juveniles forever.”

    Ilana,
    I suspected Mr. Paul was doing well after watching the Fox News Juveniles bemoaning negative campaign ads in Iowa and claiming the Paul campaign was in violation of Reagan’s admonition to never speak ill of a fellow republican.

    As you have always instinctively surmised, self defense is a “necessary precondition against aggression but it is far from a sufficient one” for civilizations. You write well and speak truthfully.

  4. Michel Cloutier

    I find this post as entertaining as it is depressing.

    Folks, please, let’s all agree we’re just spectators in this vast theater called ‘democracy’. Act one is called ‘The electoral campaign”, where hired actors pretend to be candidates in a spectacle called an ‘election’. Act two is called “Election day”, where everybody will pretend power can actually change hands from one clique to another. It’s all theater, of course. The same elite hires both sides in this theatrical play. The masses are happy, secure in the conviction they can actually influence events. Business goes as usual.

  5. Nick

    To be clear, Reagan’s 11th commandment is as follows:
    Thou shall not speak ill of another Republican after the primaries are over.

    The primaries are still on. The commandment wasn’t broken.

  6. Eric Zucker

    I will add to what Michel said.

    Democracy is a system under which control of the most dangerous institutions in society is determined by a popularity contest between charismatic demagogues.

    If the US is ever to change course and begin moving toward freedom, individuals will have to decide on their own in significant numbers to refuse to cooperate when possible with their own enslavement. That could overwhelm the resources and diminish the legitimacy of the Federal parasite. I’ll offer one strategy in another post which has the advantage of significantly benefiting the people who practice it whether or not it leads to a change in the government.

  7. CM Collins

    Mr. Malic,

    Just to be clear, do you mean Paul would not take up the project of ‘pretending that jihad doesn’t exist’ so as to ‘use [jihad] as a weapon against traditional nation-states and regional rivals’? Or something else?

  8. Dan Jeffreys

    In my daily 10 minutes of state run media per day I can stand, the Today show managed to do an entire story about how Newt was falling in the polls in Iowa without ever mentioning who was first. Here http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/12/newt-gingrich-wants-you-to-stop-the-negative-ads/ is a written version of his whining (isn’t it amazing, different network and it’s almost word for word the same story). Again, note in the article, “In an obvious swipe at Mitt Romney, who has pulled even with Gingrich in latest Gallup poll…” you would think they were both vying for first place. There is no mention of who is leading in Iowa. I cannot believe there is anyone left out there with a brain who gets most of their news from these clowns.

  9. Nebojsa Malic

    @ CM Collins: I believe Paul would neither pretend jihad doesn’t exist, nor seek to use jihadists as a weapon of Empire, as he would (at least try to) dismantle the said Empire.

  10. Mark F.

    Ilana, it seems to me that when someone is blaming gays for many of the ills of the world, wants to kick them out of government jobs, is going on and on about how sinful homosexuality is, and refuses to even consider giving gay couples the same sort of tax advantages heterosexual couples enjoy, and wants to dictate marriage law to the states, that person is not exactly gay friendly.

    I think Middle America is coming around toward a more tolerant and accepting attitude towards gays with the Bachmanns and Santorums becoming a minority.

Comments are closed.