UPDATED: Liberty’s Civilizational Dimension

Foreign Policy, History, IMMIGRATION, Left-Liberalism And Progressivisim, 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%

UPDATED: STRASSEL’S Non Sequitur

Conservatism, Foreign Policy, Military, Neoconservatism, Paleolibertarianism, Political Philosophy, Propaganda, Republicans, Ron Paul, Terrorism

KIMBERLEY A. STRASSEL of the Wall Street Journal claimed, in “Why Ron Paul Can’t Win,” that “conservative Republicans” cannot accept Paul’s philosophy as it “fundamentally denies American exceptionalism and refuses to allow for decisive action to protect the U.S. homeland.”

Is STRASSEL equating American exceptionalism with the kind of non-defensive militarism America currently practices? It would appear so.

This writer’s position on said “exceptionalism”: “the United States, by virtue of its origins and ideals,” was unique. But most Americans know nothing of the ideas that animated their country’s founding. In fact, they are more likely to hold ideas in opposition to the classical liberal philosophy of the founders, and hence wish to see the aggrandizement of the coercive state and the fulfillment of their own needs and desires through war and welfare.

Thus, I find myself in agreement with this one statement by Princeton’s Joyce Carol Oates:

“[T]ravel to any foreign country,” Oates wrote in the Atlantic Monthly in November 2007, “and the consensus is: The American idea has become a cruel joke, a blustery and bellicose bodybuilder luridly bulked up on steroids…deranged and myopic, dangerous.”

[SNIP]

I thought Paul was strong on Jay Leno, but should probably not have cozied-up to the Left in the way he did. More on that later:

UPDATE: About Bachmann, Paul Said, “she doesn’t like Muslims, she hates them, she wants to go get ‘em.'” “In reference to Rick Santorum, Paul said he can’t stop talking about ‘gay people and Muslims.'” (ABC)

Leave aside whether these statements are true or not: Paul has taken a classic Chris-Matthews kind of ad hominem swipe against Michele Bachmann: she hates Muslims. Santorum hates gays and Muslims. Siding with the Left by adopting its arguments may be situationally advantageous, but it is wrong, and will backfire on a Republican candidate in the long run. This tactic, even if it was 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.

Paul is wrong to imply, reductively, that Islamic terrorism in general and September 11 in particular are the sole consequences of American foreign policy. Libertarians cannot persist in such unidirectional formulations. Our adventurous foreign policy is a necessary precondition for Muslim aggression but it is far from a sufficient one.

UPDATED: Famously Rear-Ended Reality Stars

Celebrity, Intelligence, Journalism, Media, Pop-Culture, Sex, The Zeitgeist

In my journalism-school days one looked up to the brilliant and brave late Oriana Fallaci. Now, it’s mediocrities like colorectal crusader Katie Couric and Barbara Walters who’re considered cutting-edge clever. The last is such an idiot. But being a little compromised himself, conservatives like Bill O’Reilly actually engage Walters over picking the Kardashians for her “Most Fascinating People List.” Past prime picks for this List were Paris Hilton, Victoria and David Beckham, and Justin Timberlake.

So you have Billy arguing with batty Bawbawa that the women have no merit as they don’t act, don’t sing, do nothing but whine. Acting and singing would not necessarily make them fascinating.

The meaning of the word “fascinating” evades Barbara and her interlocutor: “Possessing the power to charm or allure; captivating.”

Go to the next room. Crank up the sound so that you can get an earful of the nasal, narcissistic monosyllables that tumble from each Kardashian’s mouth. How “fascinating” is that without the visuals?

Repulsive, freaky, morally rudderless, inappropriately sexual and depraved, so much so that I can’t stop staring: That is a precise description of the “Kardashians.” And it is not the same as “fascinating.”

The “family” is contemptuous of one another (and in general), licentious, libertine, promiscuous; a really nasty bunch of people that browbeats an effete and ineffectual father and bitches at one another. Each female adores and will do anything at all for … herself. I’ll grant her this: Kim is probably the least offensive as a human being. There is something in her eyes.

Another conservative, Sean Hannity, once touted that all-round vulgarian and one-time porn star Kim Kardashian as a role model for young girls because she does not imbibe. For the sake of good taste I will not post a hyperlink to Kim’s on-camera, bottoms-up gymnastics with a former boyfriend. But I hope Hannity’s daughter, if he has one, does not take her dad’s moral guidelines seriously. (More HERE about other Fox News porn pinups.)

Promoted by errant adults like Hannity and the moron Walters, reality show filth has seduced budding slut Montana Fishburne.

“According to TMZ.com, the 19-year-old daughter of Oscar-nominated actor Laurence Fishburne recently said that she was inspired to get into the porn industry because Kardashian found mainstream success after starting out as a sex tape star.”

Laurence Fishburne told his daughter, “I’m not going to speak with you till you turn your life around.” “You embarrassed me,” he said. “You used your last name. No one uses their real name in porn.”

For every plainspoken Fishburne, there are incoherent, meandering conservatives—this one from Pajama Media—aplenty.

UPDATE (Dec. 18): FB thread: A depraved culture supports a depraved politics and vise versa.