I see libertarianism the way I see alcoholic drinks - while I am not so fond of brandy or vodka on their own, I like them in a mug of coffee or a cup of orange juice, respectively. Strong alcohol on its own does not entice me, although it once did.
The same applies to pure libertarianism. Appealing to me at one time, it now, like a spirit on its own, makes me wince. Pure libertarians seem to oversimplify things, saying that government that's as small as possible is preferable to big government. Yes, it is, but we do need government. As a conservative, I recognize the existence of some agencies as necessary, saying that government should be small, but not as small as possible. For instance, although my hostility to the War on Drugs is substantial, I do believe in the FDA (Federal Drug Administration); I just think the agency has been hijacked by the ignorant mentality behind Drug War thinking that has ruled the roost of all administrations, Democrat or Republican, since Nixon.
Also, government that's as small as possible permits a very fine line between itself and anarchy. How much government are we taking up by enforcing the law, via police departments and courts? Libertarians are uncomfortable in answering this since they are never sure where a civil right begins or ends. While pure libertarians are invaluable for their opposition to the War on Drugs and the pro-gun control crowd, they tend to read things into the Constitution that aren't there, like a woman’s "right" to abortion or universal health care. They also tend to ally themselves with knee-jerk civil rights activism via People for the American Way and the American Civil Liberties Union, are active in the Open Borders lobby (thus making their compliance with the War on Terror suspect), and tend towards an isolationist foreign policy. While I agree that not entangling ourselves with foreign affairs is always preferable, it is not always realistic.
Which brings me to the libertarian commentator Charley Reese. Like all libertarians, he can sound conservative or liberal, based on the subjects he discusses. He tends to favor low taxes and an unintrusive government. He decried both the Afghanistan and Iraq Wars, and thinks even the War on Terror is wrong because we are not only maintaining an empire, but expanding it. According to him, in a recent column entitled "Peace is Possible," if we dismantled our bases throughout the Middle East and kicked Israel in the backside for being "nothing but a pain in America's rear end," then peace would ensue. Um … OK. Even most liberals now agree that pulling out of Iraq is neigh on impossible and therefore would not even suggest it, and others may yet think that just pulling out of the Middle East pronto would encourage more demands from other terrorist groups, and that offending the only stable democracy in that region would amount to geopolitical idiocy. But then, a pure libertarian like Mr. Reese has trouble interpreting his dreams from reality - realpolitik be damned.
.jpg?t=20120527181101)
Article comments
1 - Mac Diva
If I didn't know Blogcritics, I would think this entry was meant as satire. Of what? You name it.
2 - mike
Reese wrote the following in March of 2003. I think it's fair to say he's been completely vindicated:
http://reese.king-online.com/Reese_20030305/index.php
3 - Mac Diva
Mike, I am opposed to the war, too. But, that doesn't mean I will be taking fellow traveler status with Charley Reese. His opposition to the war is determined by his role in the neo-Confederate movement. He and his hold the invasion of Iraq to be equivalent what they consider to have been the illegal invasion of the Southern United States during the Civil War. To them, Bush is Lincoln. (The greatest tyrant in American history because he deprived thousands of Southern whites of their 'freedom,' according to Reese and Co.)
No, that ain't all. Reese is also one of the more prominent members of the League of the South, a group that promotes white supremacy and favors the secession of the Southern states, again. The new government would be a theocratic one allowing only white, propertied Chrstian men full rights. As little respect as I have for Bush's neo-cons, anti-Semitism is part of what is behind Reese's remarks in the article you cite.
So, Reese may be right about the invasion and occupation of Iraq in some ways. But, he is just as wrong in others. And, his other beliefs - in white supremacy, male domination, secession from the U.S., anti-Semitism, etc. - make him someone who is hardly a fount of wisdom.
4 - Al Barger
As a long time Libertarian party member and candidate, I share some your concerns about Libertarians and foreign policy. I've come to describe myself in recent years as a "libertarian hawk."
Here's my libertarian hawk challenge to my Libertarian Party brethren.
Does this suage your dissatisfaction with libertarianism and defense?
5 - Mark Saleski
"libertarian hawk."
also known as:
"libertarian apologist"
"libertarian rationalizer"
"faux-libertarian"
"libertarian-working-for-defense-contractor"
see: "Republican"
6 - Al Barger Is An Idiot
Libertarians are Republicans that want to smoke pot and screw hookers and not go to jail for it.
7 - Shark
How many libertarians can dance on the head of a pin?
And I agree w/Mac that this comes off as broad satire, especially the last few paragraphs: I could almost hear the J P Souza march in the background and imagine little flags poppin' outta Manning's ears.
This shit is so through the looking-glass that it would be funny if so many people weren't dying for it.
And Big Al, you could retrieve your 'Official Libertarian Membership Integrity Rating' by endorsing Reese's simple, brilliant long term solution to many of our problems:
The only American politicians (et al) who WOULDN'T endorse such a 'revolution' would be those whores owned by the Military-Industrial Complex. ie. ...*ALL OF 'EM.
*Dems and Repubs alike
8 - Al Barger
Shark, the US government does WAY too much meddling in the internal affairs of other countries.
However, if people in your country are trying to KILL US, or co-operating with, or even just tolerating those who are, then we're liable to have to step on your neck.
I'm certainly NOT interested in having a couple of pinkos define for me what I have to believe in order to be a good libertarian. Thank you and Mr. Saleski for your kind offer of help, though.
My top libertarian role models are Ayn Rand and Robert Heinlein- probably the two most popular authors among libertarians generally. Neither one of them were pacifist pussies. I can't imagine either one of them thinking that we should just cower under our beds in reaction to the war that has been declared on US.
Being called a "Republican" really doesn't mean much at this point, as it can cover anything from Pat Robertson to Arnold.
If you really feel the need, though, you could call me a "Goldwater Republican." That would be getting half ways close.
9 - mike
"So, Reese may be right about the invasion and occupation of Iraq in some ways. But, he is just as wrong in others. And, his other beliefs - in white supremacy, male domination, secession from the U.S., anti-Semitism, etc. - make him someone who is hardly a fount of wisdom."
I've corresponded privately with Reese and he is absolutely not anti-Semitic or racist. On some issues, like gay marriage, he's actually quite liberal. He wrote a very moving tribute to Edward Said after Said's death.
More importantly, he's a perfect example of a conservative who has moved to the left on many issues, but rhetorically, isn't quite ready to admit it.
Sort of comparable to John Dos Passos in 1940; dos passos had almost, but not quite, made the transition from left to right, but was still clinging to the leftist rhetorical ledge.
I'm not saying that Reese is perfect or that I agree with him all the time, or that you still can't dredge up some offensive sayings. Just give the man credit for having grown in this views. In the last six months alone, he's changed dramatically, he tells me.
10 - mike
It also gets to Doug Henwood's observation that "the right looks for converts; the left looks for heretics." Instead of blasting Reese for some of his views, we should be encouraging him with a "come on in, the water's fine" shout out.
For an example of Henwood's saying, look at Christopher Hitchens. All along Hitchens's journey from left to right, he has been warmly welcomed by conservatives, not attacked for his remaining liberal views. That's the way antiwars should treat people like Reese. If Reese feels welcome, he's more likely to keep moving in our direction.
11 - Mark Edward Manning
Al Barger: "Does this suage your dissatisfaction with libertarianism and defense?"
Absolutely. Good work, Al. It satisfies me greatly. Especially your reference to Ayn Rand ...
MacDiva: "[I] am opposed to the war, too. But, that doesn't mean I will be taking fellow traveler status with Charley Reese. His opposition to the war is determined by his role in the neo-Confederate movement. He and his hold the invasion of Iraq to be equivalent what they consider to have been the illegal invasion of the Southern United States during the Civil War."
MacDiva, who apparently wouldn't be able to tell the difference between seriousness and satire if she didn't already know what she claims she knows, admittedly has a point here, and is right. This is what you have to watch out for with the paleo-cons and those libertarians who eschew their arguments ... anti-Semitic to the core, they will hide behind any argument that says "Isreal is a real hindrance to peace," but I have never bought that as an excuse to hide genuine anti-Semitism, because 99.9% of the time, anti-Semitism is the prime motivator behind such statements.
Also, I consider Abraham Lincoln one of America's greatest presidents - and heroes. The man was a genius who had every right to hold the nation together. It was not written into the Constitution that a state may secede. States' rights are only applicable within the framework of the nation, and the Constitution. I can't understand these people who, 139 years later, are still fighting the damn Civil War ...
Mark Saleski: "libertarian hawk."
also known as:
"libertarian apologist"
"libertarian rationalizer"
"faux-libertarian"
"libertarian-working-for-defense-contractor"
see: "Republican"
BleedingHeartBullshit™
12 - Mark Edward Manning
mike: "[L]ook at Christopher Hitchens. All along Hitchens's journey from left to right, he has been warmly welcomed by conservatives, not attacked for his remaining liberal views."
With all due respect, Mike, Christopher Hitchens has not, and is not, moving from Left to Right. He is a liberal interventionist, simply put - but one who's consistent. Liberal interventionists ruled the roost during the Clinton years, or don't you remember? Haiti, Somalia, Yugoslavia ... Hitchens supported all that. He just simply saw Iraq as an opportunity to topple a regime he has always deplored, and it didn't matter to him that Bush was calling the shots; he looked beyond that. Hitchens is one of Bush's fiercest critics on domestic policy, but in terms of foreign policy, Bush is as interventionist as Clinton, but in ways that matter more, and Hitchens wasn't about to abandon his belief in an interventionist foreign policy all because of Bush.
Yes, Mr. Hitchens is welcome among pro-war conservatives for his views on Iraq - I love him myself for this - but that does not mean we're dumb enough to believe he's one of us. He's not. He's still a man of the Left.
13 - Al Barger
Christopher Hitchens has the strong asset of HONESTY. I disagree with a lot of his views, but the guy is a real, serious person.
He might interpret some facts differently than I would, but he doesn't just purposely lie and twist things around. He will reasonably acknowledge and give due credit to competing theories.
In short, you can have a serious adult conversation with this man about the big people stuff, like defending the country.
Contrast this to Michael Moore, who routinely STARTS by twisting and misrepresenting- then works his way up to just plain fabricating stupid stuff. You just can't take this guy seriously.
14 - Mark Saleski
sling all the names you'd like manning, i've known lots and lots of people who out of one side of their mouth scream about government spending while receiving their paycheck from their defense contractor mommy.
keep on suckin' on that big gommint titty...tasty, ain't it?
15 - Al Barger
Saleski, really now- that was YOU with the name throwing in comment 5. You were apparently addressing those names specifically to ME- and they are inaccurate. I promise you that I have no defense contracts compromising the integrity of my judgment.
I support the war on terror, and specifically the subset of that war in Iraq because I BELIEVE IN DEFENDING THE FRICKIN' COUNTRY. That's the ONE main thing we need the federal government to do.
Also, who are these sell-out libertarians working for defense contractors who have changed their stripes that you allude to? Got any names? Sounds like something you just kind of made up to make a supposed point.
However, even if their were some such people as you describe, SO WHAT? Does that prove that the government should in fact be all-dominating?
16 - Mark Saleski
wow, a whole lotta conclusions you draw from my goat-gettin' type comments.
and i ain't making anything up. my ex-wife and tons of her friends work for a major defense contractor here in the northeast. lots of belly-achin' about government spending.
i believe in defending the country too. however, that does NOT mean that every goddamn weapons system devised has anything to do with defending us.
17 - Al Barger
Mark, I'll definitely agree with you here: "that does NOT mean that every goddamn weapons system devised has anything to do with defending us."
I would tend at this point to want to basically lavish money on the actual soldiers, particularly for improved health benefits. One, they deserve it. Two, we need to offer enough to recruit and keep our best people.
Some of these damned planes that cost a couple of billion dollars apiece, though, that's going to need more justifying.
We should be able to do a lot more without spending any more, or not much more than we do now on the military. Cut out a few unneeded domestic bases and weapons systems, and cut out a lot of the useless bases where we have been stuck defending, for starters, France and Germany. That'd go a long ways towards freeing up money and manpower.
And I'll be keeping my goat, thank you very much.
18 - Mark Saleski
geezuz! we're agreeing on something. duck & cover!!
19 - Mark Edward Manning
Mark Saleski: "sling all the names you'd like manning [sic] ..."
Thank you, Mssr Saleski - I will, when it's applicable and justified.
If you want to sling your TalkRadioRegurgitations™ jibe at me (and other conservatives like Flanagan and Barger), which you consistenly do, then I will rejoinder with my own brand name for you. How do you like it?
Like Al, I am clueless as to who these deceptive defense-working libertarians are.
And what was that malarkey about "a whole lot of conclusions" that you called Al out for drawing up? Who was the one helping himself to a heaping pile of conclusions with comments #5 and #14, pray tell? You know, if you were curious as to whether I work(ed) for a defense-contractor, you could have just asked me. (The answer to which, by the way, is NO.)
20 - Mark Saleski
malarky?
conclusions:
1. al infering that i think government should be all-dominating:
However, even if their were some such people as you describe, SO WHAT? Does that prove that the government should in fact be all-dominating?
2. that i was making things up about supposed sell-out libertarians: i didn't , and gave some examples.
3. that i am curious about who you work for: (i don't care, and wasn't referring directly to you).
21 - Mac Diva
Impossible, Mike. A person can't be a member of the neo-Confederate movement and not be a racist. There are some strange bedfellows, such as Jewish neo-Confederates. (They ignore the talk about rights belonging to Christian white men.) But, to be a member of the movement, one has to be about white supremacy. That is what the neo-Confederate movement is. Reese, because he has some national name recognition, is one of the people the movement puts forth to try to put pretty face on where it is coming from. Yes, he will happily tell you he is not a racist, while purposely misdefining what racism is. (The usual pretext is to claim that racism requires hating other races, not considering them inferior. Al Barger will be happy to demonstrate it for you.) You have been bamboozled.