Archive for conservatism
Should Libertarians be Conservative?
Posted by: |In a recent article for the online journal Public Discourse, conservative Jay Richards asks the question: "Should Libertarians Be Conservatives?: The Tough Cases of Abortion and Marriage."
Richards is Director and Senior Fellow of the Center on Wealth, Poverty, and Morality at the Discovery Institute, a Visiting Scholar at the Institute for Faith, Work, and Economics, and co-author, with James Robison, of the New York Times bestselling book Indivisible: Restoring Faith, Family, and Freedom Before It’s Too Late (FaithWords, 2012). Richards and I have many common interests: Christianity, theology, economics, politics. He sounds like my kind of guy – except that he’s not.
Richards is your typical "criticize the welfare state while you support the warfare state conservative." I wasn’t sure at first, but after looking at his new book Indivisible, and especially his remarks in chapter five ("Bearing the Sword") on pacifism, just war, the war on terror, the military, and defense spending, my suspicions were confirmed.
Richards maintains in his Public Discourse article that libertarians "tend to disagree with conservatives on social issues." He views the issues of abortion and marriage as "the two greatest sources of conflict between libertarians and conservatives." He believes that "there is a tacit if inarticulate conservative wisdom that recognizes that the libertarian commitment to free markets and limited government is best preserved within a broader conservative context." He posits that this "conservative wisdom" should appeal to the "‘everyman libertarian’ who values limited governments, individual rights, and free markets, but is not otherwise committed to a deeply libertarian philosophy." Richards concludes: "We conservatives need to strengthen our base without alienating our near allies. One way to do that is to show how the central convictions of ‘everyman libertarians’ can find a peaceful repose in a conservative home."
Baloney.
One does not have to be a conservative to oppose abortion and defend traditional marriage. And one should certainly not be a conservative when it comes to other important issues.
I have argued that because the non-aggression axiom is central to libertarianism, and because force is justified only in self-defense, and because it is wrong to threaten or initiate violence against a person or his property, and because killing is the ultimate form of aggression that, to be consistent, libertarians should be opposed to abortion.
If conservatives are so committed to pro-life principles, then why did they continue to fund Planned Parenthood during the Bush presidency? Why did John McCain and others vote to confirm pro-abortion judges like Stephen Breyer, Ruth Ginsburg, and David Souter to the Supreme Court? Why did George H. W. Bush even nominate Souter?
I agree with Richards that "just as government may not redefine our rights as individuals, it has no authority to redefine marriage." Marriage has always been and will forever be the union of a man and a woman. God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve. Anything else is just cohabitation, fornication, civil union, voluntary contract, or domestic partnership, whether it is called a marriage or not. Same-sex marriage, which is not even supported by some homosexuals, is like a square circle, solid jello, or liquid steel.
But more importantly, and as I have also argued, the state should get out of the marriage business. Why do governments at every level require a license for people to engage in consensual, peaceful activity? And not only that, in some states there is not only a hefty fee to get a marriage license, but a required waiting period or recommended premarital counseling course. Why do two individuals need the state’s permission to get married? Who knows better if two individuals are fit to be married than the two individuals? If they want advice regarding their union, they can consult their pastor, parents, co-workers, and/or friends. It is none of the state’s business.
Marriage predated the state. It needs no protection, regulation, or monitoring by the state to continue its existence.
The real threat to the institution of marriage is not homosexuals wanting heterosexuals to recognize their same-sex marriages, it is Christians standing in a church and saying "for better for worse, for richer for poorer, in sickness and in health, to love and to cherish, till death us do part" and then getting divorced a few years later. The real assault on marriage is by serial adulterers who preach family values like the thrice-married Newt Gingrich. As Doug Bandow has recently said: "When it comes to sex the Republican Party is divided. A few members actually don’t believe it is the government’s business. However, the GOP is full of leaders with multiple marriages engaging in multiple affairs who lecture everyone else about the importance of sexual morality."
So, should libertarians be conservatives? Did not Ronald Reagan famously say: "The very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism"? The issues of abortion and same-sex marriage are used by conservatives to sucker pro-life, pro-family libertarians into believing that they should abandon libertarianism for conservatism. This would be a terrible mistake, for there is much more to conservatism than its emphasis on social issues.
There are four areas I would like to briefly mention that show the incontrovertible divide that exists between libertarians and conservatives.
First, the state. As concisely summed up by Mises Institute chairman Lew Rockwell:
The problem with American conservatism is that it hates the left more than the state, loves the past more than liberty, feels a greater attachment to nationalism than to the idea of self-determination, believes brute force is the answer to all social problems, and thinks it is better to impose truth rather than risk losing one soul to heresy. It has never understood the idea of freedom as a self-ordering principle of society. It has never seen the state as the enemy of what conservatives purport to favor. It has always looked to presidential power as the saving grace of what is right and true about America.
Second, the welfare state. As recently explained by Future of Freedom Foundation president Jacob Hornberger:
Conservatives are having a heyday calling President Obama a socialist. What they block out of their minds is that by their own measure, they are socialists too. . . . But while conservatives want to protect the assets of the rich from IRS confiscation and welfare-state redistribution, conservatives cannot deny that they themselves also favor the welfare-state concept of taxing people so that the state can redistribute the money to others. The only thing different between conservatives and liberals is the identity of the people they wish to tax and the identity of people they wish to receive the loot.
Third, war. I have said on more than one occasion that the very heart and soul of conservatism is war. Patriotism, Americanism, and being a real conservative are now equated with support for war, torture, and militarism. I firmly stand by this assertion that I first made in 2009, although it was true long before then.
And fourth, the drug war. Out of one side of their mouth conservatives talk about individual liberty, free markets, limited government, less intrusive government, cutting regulations, personal responsibility, and the Constitution, but at the same time they say out of the other side of their mouth that if you buy, sell, or possess a substance the government doesn’t approve of then we will lock you up in a cage. And if you buy, sell, or possess too much, then we will throw away the key.
Should libertarians be conservatives? To be consistent, must pro-life, pro-family libertarians be conservatives? Absolutely not.
Originally published on LewRockwell.com on May 14, 2012.
Tags: conservatism, culture, libertarianism
Debating Christian Libertarianism
Posted by: |I have historically been a fan of the Acton Institute. Their site has been on LCC’s blogroll for quite a long time. Yet they (or at least one particular blogger) seem to be becoming more and more “conservative” rather than sticking with their relatively libertarian roots.
A few weeks ago, Acton blogger Joe Carter wrote Libertarians, Religious Conservatives, and the Myth of Social Neutrality and spoke against what he admittedly called a “grossly simplistic caricature” of libertarianism. His main point was, simply, that the “conservative” position trumps the “libertarian” position because it is more “realistic” about “neutrality” and “bias.” (I use the scare quotes intentionally because I think the terms of the debate are basically a bunch of straw-men set up to be pushed back down, and his “caricature” is truly, grossly, simplistic.) About a week later, Jacqueline Otto responded with Christian Libertarians and the Myth of Legislating Morality, which argued that the Christian libertarian position powerfully answers his objections. Carter then promptly responded more or less by saying there ain’t no such thing as a Christian libertarian because I haven’t seen one. 106 comments later on that post, one could not tell whether he had changed his mind. After Jacqueline’s next followup (Four Things Christian Libertarians Believe), Carter again responded with what amounts to “Sorry, libertarianism and Christianity have irreconcilable differences.”
To be fair, Carter seems like a fine fellow. Overall he is a courteous interlocutor, which is something to be commended. However, he also seems strangely uninformed about what libertarianism actually is, and even less informed about Christian libertarians. In this series of posts I intend to respond to a number of his objections in short form and put forward a consistent Christian libertarian position that answers his primary complaints. That being said, I want to recommend again reading Jacqueline Otto’s response in full, as it is superb.
In this particular post, I want to address his “grossly simplistic caricature” of libertarianism:
Libertarians believe that neutrality between the various spheres of society—and especially between the government and the individual—are both possible and desirable, and so the need for bias toward a certain outcome is not only unnecessary, but contrary to liberty.
Even if this were a true statement, it would be too vague to be operational because of its lack of specific terms. More importantly, this caricature misses the central point of the libertarian creed: the non-aggression principle. Libertarians believe that all aggression (that is, the use of property/person without consent of the owner) is unjustified. There is no “neutrality” of libertarians on institutionalized aggression, we are absolutely against it, and we expect this to be reflected in the law.
We then come to his contrasting statement about “religious conservatives,” which he defines as “political (though not necessarily theological) conservatives whose views are influenced and sustained by religious principles.”
Religious conservatives, in contrast, recognize that such neutrality between individual and social spheres is illusory and that bias is an intractable aspect of human nature.
This is essentially a disguised way of saying that Carter is in favor of aggression in some cases. Such shall be demonstrated in the rest of Carter’s article.
Carter then writes:
If these caricatures are generally applicable (as I believe they mostly are), then it helps to explain how libertarians and conservatives can use language that is similar—if not exactly the same—and yet come to wildly different conclusions.
I do believe there is similar language used, and in fact Carter even admits that this is because conservatives have adopted certain forms of libertarian speech. Of course, I would add that they do this while holding over totalitarian streaks within them and twisting certain conclusions out of such language. This is why it is possible for George W. Bush to wax eloquent on freedom one minute, and then in the next start two massive wars, socialize health care, and consolidate Federal power to an extent that would have made the Caesars cringe in fear.
Carter seems to think that the libertarian is just a stupid conservative. On the contrary, it seems to me to be extremely generous to say that conservatives are massively inconsistent libertarians.
Carter continues:
By placing an overemphasis on individual liberty without an equal accent on individual virtue, the libertarian unwittingly erodes the foundation of order on which her political theory stands. Order is a necessary precondition of liberty and must be maintained from the lowest level of government (the individual conscience) to the highest (the State). The individual conscience is the most basic level of government and it is regulated by virtues. Ordered liberty, in this view, is not an end unto itself but a means by which eudaimonia (happiness or human flourishing) can most effectively be pursued. Liberty is a necessary component of virtue, but it cannot serve as a substitute.
This is another disguised way of saying that although liberty is of value to the conservative/Carter, there is another ulterior motive that will trump any prior commitment to non-aggression. In other words, the conservative is perfectly fine with aggression if committed toward his own virtuous end. This is sounding much more like Objectivism than Christianity to me.
Now this does not mean the Christian libertarian is unconcerned with virtue – we are talking about particular political norms, not our standards of individual, personal morality. I choose not to commit fornication, but I shall not commit aggression against those who do.
Lastly, this paragraph betrays the other major conservative problem – the assumption of government. Carter believes that order precedes liberty, and that this order is established by government. There can be no greater divergence from the libertarian – and Christian libertarian – creed than this. Note in this selection how he indirectly suggests that there must be laws that will require aggression so that order is maintained, and yet there is no justification for it other than the implicit: “there must be order, my kind of order.” True libertarians cannot accept this.
It is through voluntary interaction and peaceable exchange of goods and ideas that order comes into being. As Proudhon said, “Liberty is the mother, not the daughter, of order.” Until the conservative recognizes this fundamental principle, he is as far away from libertarianism as a neo-liberal.
Tags: christian libertarian, christian libertarianism, Christianity, conservatism, ethics, government, libertarian christian, order
In another bizarre twist that characterizes American politics, Rush Limbaugh has endorsed Ron Paul’s new budget plan (reported yesterday on LCC), including his cuts to foreign wars. Really, I’m not joking. Is Rush, a conservative warhawk of the first order, figuring out there is no way to be fiscally responsible without spurning his precious warfare state? And I thought I had seen it all. Well, check it out.
(HT Chris Bevis for the title of this post.)
Tags: conservatism, economics, politics, Ron Paul
Five Lies of the Religious Right About Ron Paul
Posted by: |
Although I am a theological and cultural Christian conservative, I am not a member of the Religious Right and never have been. Adherents of the Religious Right are oftentimes more wrong than they are right. And they have never been more wrong than in their lies about Ron Paul.
The lies about Ron Paul uttered by the media, the Republican Party, the political establishment, conservative talk show hosts, and rank and file Republicans and conservatives who blindly parrot their leaders, and even some libertarians are legion. However, when it comes to Christian armchair warriors, Christian Coalition moralists, evangelical warvangelicals, Catholic just war theorists, reich-wing Christian nationalists, theocon Values Voters, imperial Christians, Red-State Christian fascists, God and country Christian bumpkins, and other Religious Rightists that have no problem draping the cross of Christ with the American flag, there are basically five lies that are continually told about Congressman Paul, all recycled from the last time he ran for president.
Lie number one: Ron Paul is not pro-life. That is, he doesn’t support a federal law or constitutional amendment banning abortion since that is entirely up to the states.
The subject of abortion is one that Ron Paul is uniquely qualified to talk about. In addition to being a member of Congress, Ron Paul is a physician specializing in obstetrics and gynecology who has delivered over 4,000 babies. In forty years of medical practice, Dr. Paul says, "I never once considered performing an abortion, nor did I ever find abortion necessary to save the life of a pregnant woman." He believes "beyond a doubt that a fetus is a human life deserving of legal protection, and that the right to life is the foundation of any moral society." But unlike many Republicans in Congress, Representative Paul also believes in consistently and strictly following the Constitution in all matters. Therefore, as he simply states:
Under the 9th and 10th amendments, all authority over matters not specifically addressed in the Constitution remains with state legislatures. Therefore the federal government has no authority whatsoever to involve itself in the abortion issue. So while Roe v. Wade is invalid, a federal law banning abortion across all 50 states would be equally invalid.
Dr. Paul is also consistently pro-life. Many pro-life Religious Rightists are cheerleaders for the killing of innocents outside of the womb in senseless foreign wars. Ron Paul believes in the sanctity of all human life.
Lie number two: Ron Paul supports drug use. That is, he doesn’t support the unconstitutional federal war on drugs.
The $41 billion a year war on drugs is a failure in every respect. It has reduced neither the demand for nor the availability of drugs. It has failed to keep drugs away from kids and addicts. It has made criminals out otherwise law-abiding Americans – over 1.5 million Americans are arrested on drug charges every year, with almost half of those arrests being just for possession of marijuana. The war on drugs encourages violence, unnecessarily swells the prison population with non-violent offenders, destroys civil liberties, attacks personal and financial privacy, and corrupts and militarizes the police. But not only do the costs of the drug war greatly exceed its benefits, it is clearly an unconstitutional activity of the federal government. As a physician, Dr. Paul knows full well the harmful effects of illicit drug use. But he also recognizes the dangers to liberty, property, and limited government that the war on drugs poses. It is perplexing and hypocritical that Religious Rightists don’t likewise support a war on alcohol since every negative thing – and more – that could be said about drug abuse could also be said about alcohol abuse.
Lie number three: Ron Paul is not pro-Israel. That is, he doesn’t support looting the American taxpayers and giving the money to a foreign government.
Since World War II, the U.S. government has dispensed hundreds of billions of dollars in foreign aid in a variety of forms to over 150 countries. Foreign aid is further camouflaged as U.S. support for the UN, IMF, World Bank, and other globalist organizations. Foreign aid now costs the American taxpayer over $40 billion a year. Egypt received over $1.5 billion in foreign aid last year. Israel received over twice as much. Since their peace accord in 1979, Egypt and Israel have been the top two recipients of U.S. foreign aid, accounting for about one-third of all foreign aid spending. Foreign aid is really foreign government aid that enriches the leaders of corrupt regimes and their privileged contractors. Foreign aid further entrenches the U.S. government bureaucracy, increases the power of the state, fosters dependency on U.S. largesse, and lines the pockets of U.S. corporations whose products are bought with foreign aid money. Following the advice of Thomas Jefferson, who advocated "honest friendship with all nations" and "entangling alliances with none," Representative Paul sees neutrality as the best foreign policy for the United States: "The real, pro-US solution to the problems in the Middle East is for us to end all foreign aid, stop arming foreign countries, encourage peaceful diplomatic resolutions to conflicts, and disengage militarily."
Lie number four: Ron Paul is weak on defense. That is, he doesn’t support perpetual, senseless, and immoral foreign wars.
Most of U.S. military spending is not for defense, but for offense. Most of what the military does is outside of the country and in some cases thousands of miles away: providing disaster relief, dispensing humanitarian aid, supplying peacekeepers, enforcing UN resolutions, nation building, spreading goodwill, launching preemptive strikes, establishing democracy, changing regimes, assassinating people, training armies, advising armies, rebuilding infrastructure, reviving public services, opening markets, maintaining no-fly zones, occupying countries, and, of course, fighting foreign wars. The proper use of the military – as envisioned by Ron Paul – is in defending the United States, not defending other countries, and certainly not bombing, invading, or occupying them. Using the military for any other purpose than the actual defense of the United States – its land, its shores, its skies, its coasts, its borders – perverts the purpose of the military. The United States is not and cannot be the world’s policeman.
Lie number five: Ron Paul is an isolationist. That is, he doesn’t support a global empire with 1,000 foreign military bases and troops stationed in 150 countries.
The Department of Defense has more than 500,000 facilities on more than 5,500 sites totaling approximately 29 million acres. There are over 300,000 U.S. troops in foreign countries – plus over 100,000 troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, plus tens of thousands of contractors. The word isolationist is a pejorative term of intimidation used to stifle debate over foreign policy. A noninterventionist foreign policy – like that espoused by Ron Paul – is a foreign policy is a policy of peace, diplomacy, and neutrality that includes trade, cultural exchanges, travel, immigration and emigration, and foreign investment. No invasions, threats, sanctions, embargoes, commitments, meddling, entangling alliances, or troops and bases on foreign soil.
So why the lies?
Why all the lies about a candidate who is and has always been really pro-life, pro-family, pro-religion, pro-family values, pro-religious liberty, pro-gun, pro-Constitution, pro-fiscal conservatism, pro-free market, pro-sound money, pro-defense, pro-liberty, pro-peace, pro-privacy, and pro-property. Why all the lies about a candidate who is and has always been really anti-UN, anti-tax increases, anti-taxes, anti-abortion, anti-gun control, anti-unconstitutional government spending, anti-birthright citizenship, anti-amnesty, anti-New World Order, anti-foreign aid, anti-government subsidies, anti-foreign wars, anti-welfare, anti-socialized medicine, anti congressional pay raises, anti-congressional pensions, anti-government-paid junkets, and anti-centralization of power in the federal government.
I say really because Ron Paul is and has always been for and against these things on a philosophical level. He doesn’t just say he is for or against these things to get elected. He doesn’t change his message depending on the crowd he’s addressing. He has a track record of consistency unmatched by anyone who has ever been in Congress or run for president. Why would any member of the Religious Right not embrace Ron Paul as their ideal candidate even as they run from the current crop of Republican presidential candidates?
So why the lies?
I think they are due in a great measure to ignorance: ignorance of the Constitution, ignorance of federalism, ignorance of U.S. foreign policy, ignorance of the U.S. government, ignorance of American history, ignorance of the Republican Party, ignorance of the Bible, ignorance of anything but what is heard on Fox News, ignorance of anything but what is uttered by conservative talk radio show hosts, ignorance of anything but the propaganda that comes out of many church pulpits. Unfortunately, however, much of this ignorance is willful and complacent.
But not all Religious Rightists are ignorant. Some are just deliberate apologists for the state, its leaders, its military, its wars, and its foreign policy. If they were honest, then they would have to say that they believe in the centralization of power in Washington DC, in a police state that inconsistently criminalizes peaceful behavior, in swearing allegiance to a foreign government and looting other taxpayers that don’t share their allegiance, in endless foreign wars and military interventions, and in maintaining an empire of troops and bases around the world and meddling in the affairs of other countries.
The last time Dr. Paul ran for president, I concluded that he would not be the candidate of choice of the Religious Right because they love centralization more than federalism, political power more than liberty, war more than peace, politicians more than principles, faith-based socialism more than the free market, and the state more than God Almighty. The Religious Right’s embrace of candidates like Rick Perry and Michele Bachmann and non-candidates like Sarah Palin and Mike Huckabee leads me now to the same conclusion.
Originally published on LewRockwell.com on October 6, 2011.
Tags: conservatism, history, libertarianism, politics, religious right, Ron Paul, war
Norman Horn is the creator and primary writer for LCC. Learn a little bit about him in the 