Richard Weaver, one of the founders of modern conservatism, once wrote a book entitled “Ideas have Consequences”; unfortunately, too many Republicans are still refusing to acknowledge that idiocy has consequences, too.
—Lexington (the Economist)
BIG THINGS are happening. As you know, a battle now rages over what the Republican Party will stand for. Now, it's getting ugly.
One aspect of the battle involves the familiar tension between conservatives who call themselves “libertarians” and conservatives who embrace so-called “social” issues (anti-homosexuality, anti-abortion, etc.) and that odd assortment of motives, tendencies, and prejudices represented by the gone-but-not-forgotten Bush Administration (e.g., nation-building, “end-justifies-the-means” pursuit of goals, anti-intellectualism, know-nothingism, etc.).
It goes without saying, I suppose, that most of the Bushies’ tendencies and pursuits were assaults on libertarian ideals. It must have been hard for libertarian “conservatives” to support W when, in truth, he was their enemy.
American “conservatism,” at least since the fifties, has been a pretty complicated beast. “Small government” thinking, which is very old (it is associated with “classical liberalism” and such thinkers as Jefferson, Voltaire, and Smith), has long been important to most self-described American conservatives. In recent decades, so has a horror at the availability of abortions. Arguably, neither of these positions is conservative in the most essential sense of the word, namely, preservation of the traditional.
TigerAnn recommends lots of sleep.
Since the Enlightenment, “conservatism,” at least in this country, has maintained a weak traditionalism. Meanwhile, it has grown distinctly pessimistic about human progress, skeptical of utopian or progressive plans and projects, and generally pleased with the tried and true, whether cherished or not. That’s its non-ideological ideology. So it is hard to make a case for anti-abortionism as “conservative.” Conservatism doesn’t clearly point one way or another about that.
(I have long been struck by the paradox that mainstream “conservatives” in our country are the most vocal and dependable boosters of business and economic development, and yet it is plain, I think, that their world of “commerce come what may!” is the eroder of traditions par excellence. [Please excuse me while I check my Twitter account and monitor an eBay auction for the the new Orgasmatron 2.0.])
Libertarians, unlike today’s “Republican base” (i.e., the Bible-toting Bush/Palin crowd), are not merely uninterested in enforcing a way of life. They have an ideology according to which such enforcement is wicked: government should stick to refereeing among citizens who are, by right, free to pursue their lives as they see fit.
GREENHUT V. RED COUNTY
Well, anyway, these tensions are playing out right now in our beloved Orange County.
The OC Register’s Steven Greenhut is a libertarian: utterly fed up with the GOP, he joined the L party not long ago. Meanwhile, the OC’s conservative establishment churns out its message and amuses its Rush-happy loutery on the OC edition of Red County, a right-wing blog.
Apparently, some of Red County’s bigwigs have recently taken aim at libertarians such as Greenhut, labeling them extreme—something the GOP must rid itself of if it is to recover and flourish. The criticism got pretty nasty—and mighty illogical.
So, on the 14th of this month, Greenhut replied.
Eternal vigilance. That's the ticket.
The OC Reg’s Orange Punch blog
Steven Greenhut
Who are the real extremists?
The good Republican folks at Red County have published a post accusing libertarians of being extremists…. Yet one prominent writer at the blog [David Bahnsen], and someone who has zealously joined in the “libertarians are extremists” [commentary] has long ties to Christian Reconstructionism, a form of fundamentalist Christianity that seeks to impose Old Testament law on society. Would it be fair, then, to suggest that Red County is in league with those views, which I believe are somewhat outside the mainstream?
…I can guarantee that many of the Republican activists I dealt with [in Iowa] were racist, angry nutcases. Given the common Mexican-hating among GOP activists these days, maybe it’s fair to say the conservative mainstream holds racist views. … My point: Every movement is filled with people who have some, er, unusual views. I can do the same thing as [Red County's Chip] Hanlon: mock and mischaracterize the conservative worldview and dredge up crazy things I’ve heard from right-wing kooks over the years….
Chip Hanlon accuses me or people like me of hating America, based on his deliberate misconstruing of the libertarian view of big government. If I accused him of hating Mexicans or gays based on the views of people like him on the Right, then he would rightly be outraged, but it’s somehow OK to make outrageous and unsubstantiated accusations against his opponent.
Based on his logic, I suppose that he wants to stone gay people and adulterers, which is a part of the Christian Reconstructionist list of must-dos. And since blogger and commenter David Bahnsen, son of the famous reconstructionist author Greg Bahnsen, is on Red County and is joining in his anti-libertarian crusade, then this must be the epitome of Red County thinking, right?….
…By the way, how many local Republican causes have been funded by [Tom Fuentes’ pal] Howard Ahmanson, a decent man who has rejected many of that movement’s extreme views, but who has in the past been allied with [the Christian Reconstructionist] ... movement? Yet these folks presume to offer the final word on the proper right-of-center mainstream — and they do so by analyzing and over-analyzing one paragraph in a (intended to be) humorous column. They just can’t tolerate any criticism of their support for big government policies in the area of war and spying….
Wow.
Two days later, evidently missing Greenhut’s main point, the semi-literate Mr. Bahnsen responded:
Red County
David Bahnsen
My Reply to Greenhut's Cheap Broadside (or: “I think I doth protest too much”)
…[Steve Greenhut] is trying to make me “guilty by association” when he knows ... that I do not believe what he attempts to lump me in with (I am not a Christian Reconstructionist, I do not believe such a movement of people even exists any more, and I have spent ten years earnestly defining my own worldview as one distinctly at odds with the very things Steve says). Steve knows this. ... He pulled this ploy about my dead dad and about me because he wanted to poison the well. On the other hand, Chip Hanlon and I did not use “guilt by association” to criticize Steve. We used his own words. Period. He continually bashes the men and women who serve in our military. He has a constant theme and focus on denigrating law enforcement. He has every right in the world to disagree with the war in Iraq. His post-July 4th article went far beyond that.
I have known for years that Steve Greenhut “jumped the shark”, and was now in the world of extremist isolationism. ... [Ron Paul and the libertarians]… are oblivious to the threat America faces…. Fine conservative men … disagreed with the Iraq war. [But Greenhut] has gone over the top, and I suspect that reputation he has built for himself explains much of the collapsing popularity of the OC Register’s once distinguished editorial section.… His irrelevant and morally apathetic worldview is no better off today than it was before he wrote the piece.
…What is unforgivable … is the blatant lying and twisting of facts to try and throw a bomb. If Greenhut’s 16 readers at the OC Register blog want to know if I hold to a worldview that is deeply rooted in the Christian-Catholic faith, the answer is yes. If they want to know if I believe that part of my faith involves a belief in Catholic social thought, and world and life view Christianity, the answer is yes. I have no intention of divorcing my faith from my business, my family, or my politics. … I see the political realm as completely distinct from the ecclesial realm, etc. … Steve’s views are the ones out of line with the historical Christian faith, and certainly out of line with the foundational heritage of our great nation.
I am not a Reconstructionist, I do not know anyone who is, and my father never believed the things Steve says he did. He is a firebomb-throwing hack who should not be taken seriously. I do believe in moral progress, and I do believe that throughout history, more and more people are going to be persuaded in many of the things that I believe (you know, radical things like family being a key unit in civilization, the rule of law, the morality of free markets, the freedom to practice your religion, etc.). … My hope and faith is purely in the gradual and voluntary (and inevitable) progress of history….
…The Tige has her eye on these fools.
… We [at Red County] are fervently seeking to see true fiscal order restored to our party…. We welcome vigorous debate. But sometimes, even though “guilt by association” is a fallacy, one has to be very cautious about who they are lumped in with. ... [R]eal change has never been effected by the brand of Libertarianism Steve now identifies himself with. We Reagan Republicans can boast differently.
Sheesh.
Then, yesterday (7/19), Greenhut offered this:
OC Reg editorial
Steven Greenhut
Steven Greenhut: Watch who you call extremist
…This week, I'm writing about [a]… political divorce [that is] sure to be full of bitterness and custody disputes. It involves the future of the Republican Party and the conservative movement, following the GOP's well-deserved November election drubbing….
…[S]ome party activists … have decided that the real problem isn't just President Barack Obama, but the small-"l" libertarians who still remain within their midst. Local activists … accused me of … no longer being relevant … because of my July 4 column that poked fun at U.S. military adventurism and the possibly illegal policies of U.S. spy agencies. … The [accusatory] article, written by GOP/Red County honcho Chip Hanlon, uses my column as an example of the supposed extremism and America-hating found within the libertarian movement….
Hanlon goes for the easy straw man: "They argue – with the benefit of hindsight – that we should never have gotten involved in World War II, that Abraham Lincoln is one of history's worst war criminals … . […]… When their full belief system is known, however, support of Libertarians like Paul cannot be defended. But folks like Paul are learning, becoming better at hiding their extremist views."
…Like totalitarians, [the GOP establishmentarians] invited us to renounce our "extremism," make a public apology and join their cause to limit government, which is akin to a drunk calling on members of Alcoholics Anonymous to join him at the bar if they really want to fight alcoholism.
The GOP can't claim to fight for smaller government. The Bush administration set spending records, doubled the national debt, vastly expanded Medicare entitlements and waged a costly Iraqi adventure that has caused tragic losses of life….
Since the election, the same GOP that has sung hosannas to the empty vessel of Sarah Palin has gone out of its way to depict supporters of Paul as cultlike camp followers. … We simply like most of the age-old ideas he espouses, as he's one of the few national figures who still espouses them….
…Sure, the [Libertarian Party] is ineffective and a bit odd, … but it's better than being stuck in an unhappy marriage with a mean-spirited, abusive and angry loser of a spouse.
Maybe the Red County reaction is proof of the long-awaited and much-needed end of the old Reagan coalition, which was comprised of small-government types, social conservatives and military hawks. The GOP is still home for social conservatives and military expansionists, but there's nothing left of value for believers in liberty. And I am so sick of all the Reagan idolatry by that side. I like Reagan, but he did, in fact, expand government. His legacy shouldn't be off-limits to criticism.
…
I spent some time on Red County following this dust-up and found one occasional columnist arguing, "[…]We should follow Russia's lead in not allowing further building of mosques or Islamic schools in America until Saudi Arabia reciprocates. … Our response to an Islamic challenge could well result in vastly expanded Christian political dominance in America. […]."
Does re-establishing 1940s-era sedition laws and abridging religious freedom sound mainstream to you? ….
...
Let's just end the fighting. Those who believe in truly limiting government, in domestic and overseas affairs, should realize that we are no longer part of the conservative movement and certainly not welcome in the Republican Party. … I can guarantee that it's far more entertaining watching Republicans lose elections from a distance than from within their crazy, immigrant-bashing, warmongering, torture-endorsing, government-expanding, civil-liberties-trouncing hothouse.
Do you suppose these people will ever kiss and make up? I doubt it.
I do have one suggestion, inspired by John Stuart Mill's infamous remark about British conservatives. First, the GOP should embrace honesty as its core “value.” I think that would be great. And refreshing!It should designate Sarah Palin as its leader and the moose as its mascot.
It should then simply call itself the “stupid party.”
Meanwhile, libertarians will just be libertarians.
(Check out what the OC Weekly's Gustavo Arellano had to say about all this.)
7 comments:
Ya gotta love watching conservatives eating their own.
"I have no intention of divorcing my faith from my business, my family, or my politics. … I see the political realm as completely distinct from the ecclesial realm, etc."
This is so disjointed, disingenuous, and downright fraudulent so as to defy reasonable analysis.
I am attracted to conservative skepticism (of utopian dreams, social engineering, progressive schemes) and its cautiousness about change. Call me a conservative. ¶ Unfortunately, the Richard Weavers of American conservatism are dead, leaving a Republican establishment dominated by crude, demagogic louts (Boehner, Limbaugh, Graham, et al.) and non-conservative libertarian dreamers (Paul, Greenhut) who, it seems, are being shown the exit. So, in that sense, I do not share in the glee at "conservatives" eating their own, for I would love to see a genuinely conservative party emerge. ¶ But, like I said, Richard Weaver is dead. He's more dead in his own country than in any other. He's super-dead. ¶ We must rely on an intelligent President--and the hack-bound Democratic party. God help us.
John Stuart Mill? The guy who tried to collapse the distinction between the desired and the desirable? (Has there ever been a more wrong-headed and pernicious idea in moral philosophy?) You want to use him to call others stupid?
1:22: First, a fellow who accomplished as much as Mill did (in so many fields: logic, political philosophy, economics, ethics) is hardly rendered unworthy by one "wrong-headed" idea. By that standard, no philosopher is worthy. Second, I was not appealing to Mill's ideas; rather, I was using his notorious putdown, and obviously that does not entail my agreeing with everything or indeed anything he ever said. Have you ever appealed to the notion of the Big Lie? It is a very useful notion and term. That it was coined (or, anyway, identified) by a Nazi does not make it less useful. Pay attention!
Love the charges and countercharges of employing logical fallacies! Would make for a very interesting lesson in logic for students.
Glad Greenhut finally (though futilely) called out Reagan for the tax-increasing, government- expanding politician that he was. But I guess some continue to prefer the myth to the reality. And the R's wonder why their party doesn't appeal to, well, readers and thinkers.
Yes, it's always nice to see public discourse that appeals to logical concepts such as the informal fallacies. It does seem to me that Greenhut bested Bahnsen and Co. The latter crew clearly engaged in "guilt by association" and "straw man" tactics (not to mention pure [and unclever] name-calling). Does Greenhut do the same? Well, at least he's more careful. I think Greenhut's alarming quote from a Red County contributor is pretty damning: that such stuff passes (on RC) without outrage tells us much, I think, about that blog. I do think that, in a "who's mainstream?" contest, both sides lose, but at least the libertarians are focused (on small government) and eschew anti-intellectual nonsense (or at least Greenhut seems to). I wonder, though, whether the Green Man will survive this bout? I think he's walking the plank.
Post a Comment