Levin ad nauseam
Digg 
Stumble Upon 
Newsvine 
Slashdot 
Mixx 
Diigo 
Delicious 
Reddit 
Facebook
MINT-AND-CORN COUNTRY, INDIANA — I concede that, just maybe, I have become a little too obsessed with Mark Levin and his antics, the wickedness of that is Happy Meal conservatism, and the entire kerfuffle that led to the coining of the term “prefabricon”, to the point that I now occasionally peruse Levin’s Website, looking to see what sort of silliness I may find and reading summaries of each day’s show. (I have yet, I admit, to subject myself to the intellectual-aural persecution that is listening to the program.) Obviously, I want no truck with this jockstrap journalism, but it has become something like an automobile accident to me: No matter how much I wish, I simply cannot look away. Part of it, I reckon, has something to do with this, an Amazon reader review of Levin’s Liberty and Tyranny, to which Levin’s Website links, because “Readers Love Mark’s Book!”
[Five Stars out of Five] I just finished reading this great book. I’d like to thank Mark for spending a couple years of his life putting this together. He has footnotes all over this book, and you can see for yourself the EXTENSIVE amount of research he has done. This book is not about Democrats vs. Republicans. This book is about Conservatives vs. Statists. It accurately infroms the reader just what a Statist is (a believer in big government) and what a Conservative is (a believer in the individual to make up his/her own mind) All this said, the success of this book has now lead to a couple authors (back-benchers as Mark calls them) to throw together books in a month or two, piggy-backing on Mark’s success. Don’t be fooled by cheap imitators (or those with tourettes); this is the original and best book on the market about the current situation in our country and what to do about it. Use your own “common sense”, bypass the wanna-bes and get this book. It’s the only one you need. [My emphases. - NPO]
Perusing other reviews by the reader here, one Dennis Waldinger, one begins to sense that he may suffer from some degree of cognitive dissonance. What puzzles me most — and this, of course, is nothing new — is the conflation of individualism and conservatism here. I am not about to argue that conservatism is anti-individual, but, rightly understood, methinks, conservatism recognizes that the individual, rather than atomistic, is part of the organic community; he is not an island, to paraphrase Donne. With Mr. Waldinger and, seemingly, Mr. Levin, this middle-ground exists not. We have the State and we have the Individual; we have contemporary liberalism and points left and we have libertarianism and classical liberalism (which Larison has ably argued, in a post titled, appropriately enough, “Statism”, intrinsically descends into statism). This leads me to ponder which came first in this chicken-and-egg conundrum: Is this peculiar “conservatism” qua phenomenon the source of right-wing jockstrap journalism, or did the first purveyors of a false reality brainwash a sufficient number of the masses into believe it to be a) conservative and b) healthy?
I have become somewhat weary of employing the epithet “statist”; given the prevalence of the word in Levin’s rambling, I think that I’m glad of this. Given his support for militarism, and that war is the health of the state, I keep seeing this in my mind every time I envision Levin’s face. Statism, of course, is this.
I think you’re making a fundamental error running organic community and the state together. To fight against statism might be to fight *for* community and not against it. One of the most interesting advocates of this position to my mind is Bernard Bosanquet, who gave a speech at the Fabian society in 1890 where he accused the Fabian socialists of being the true individualists and that a much smaller, laissez-faire state was the true community in which human flourishing could be promoted.
Bosanquet, like Hegel, saw public reason as pervading society, and oddly, but interestingly, he saw the market as expressing the General Will. I quite like Bosanquet and think myself an organicist of a sort. This is, incidentally, to think the dichotomy between individualism and community is false, by the way; it is not the position you have presented. The German organicists tended towards collectivism while maintaining that they were defending the individual (one can argue this was true of Hegel, but I think that’s wrong – it is very true of his left-wing followers, however). It is not true, I think, of the British Hegelians either, particularly not T. H. Green and Bosanquet, although many of Green’s students became socialists (yet always opposed mechanistic and central planning socialism, like Marxism and Fabianism).
Anyway, so let’s do away with this false dichotomy between anti-statism and communitarianism.
Kevin, thanks for commenting.
I think you misunderstand where I stand, which is perhaps understandable, given that the crux of this posting wasn’t communitarianism, but the absurdity of the attitude espoused by Levin and his followers.
My point is that I view communitarianism as a wholly separate “third way”, neither statism (Certainly not!) nor the particular sort of anti-statism espoused by Levin, et alios. Theirs is an anti-statism that emphasizes the individual over the community, which, as I note, I think, per Larison (See linked article.) tends naturally to warp into statism — because, put (over)simply, the “Every man a King” ideology demands some sort of mediating element to preserve the peace, to wit, the State.
Put otherwise, I’m not positing a dichotomy between anti-statism and communitarianism; I’m positing a dichotomy between individualist “anti-statism” and communitarianism.
Do you see communitarianism as conceptually tied to any particular view about the state? Because in light of the clarification, you still seem to see one. My main aim was to point out that the two ideas are wholly separable, depending on one’s other beliefs about empirical matters – such as which institutions produce good community and about values – what sort of community you like.
“Do you see communitarianism as conceptually tied to any particular view about the state?”
I’m not sure what in my clarification leads to believe that I do. Perhaps my still using “anti-statist” when referring to Levin, et al. was a poor choice.
I’m not anti-anti-statist; I’m anti-individualist, or anti-”anti-statist”. As I note, from my perspective, individualist “anti-statism” — to which Levin & co. adhere — ultimately degrades into statism. This isn’t my only beef with individualism, but it’s a serious one.
To answer your question, then, No. I view the state — at least as we contemporarily conceive of it — as, at best, a necessary evil, to be limited only to whatever functions, if any, positively shouldn’t be done locally.
I’m something of, to throw words together, an Aristotelian anarchist, an Anarchp-Red Tory, a front-porch republican, a neo-Distributist, and so on. The modern nation-state, to me, is anathema — corporate, soulless, materialistic, imperialistic, wasteful, and anti-communitarian.
In my weaker moments, I’m willing to accept some degree of generally unwarranted statist intervention in cases when individualism/statism has so completely destroyed traditional systems/methods/modes/ways as to render complete rejection of the state as untenable. I think presently of, e.g. Medicare. That’s for another day, though, I reckon: I’m not in the mood to defend the guvmint.
The compelling factor that makes conservative talk so wildly popular, especially in rural pockets of the country, is that it provides a forum where sexually frustrated men can come together in fellowship and share their rage with fellow conservatives who aren’t getting laid much either. It literally drives conservative men insane to know that there are other guys out there getting laid on a regular basis, when they have to settle for whacking it to Internet porn after their wives have turned in for the evening. Occassionally, some of them can’t take it anymore and they pull a Mark Foley or Larry Craig, or in the event they are genuinely straight, and not just putting on a ruse to fool fellow church-goers, maybe a John Ensign or Mark Sanford.
I clicked some links and looked at Will Wilkinson’s blog defending statism in a debate with NR’s Jonah Goldberg. For one thing, I think it’s quite disingenuous for Will to parade his ardent defense for civil libertarianism around the Cato Institute but then to defend certain amounts of redistribution and government control of negative externalities in the markets, etc. Were he to call himself a libertarian, which I don’t think he would necessarily, he’d be from the Noam Chomsky libertarian socialist brand, which is hardly libertarian at all. Furthermore, it takes a very naive view of human nature to believe government institutions can somehow inevitably and perpetually escape misuse, corruption, inefficiency, and abuse for the true good of the public. If anyone here reads Nozick or even the British empiricists they would see the fallacy behind an advocacy for anything other than a night watchman state. To defend Levin a little bit, what he’s advocating is something most of the people associated with this magazine should find desirable, namely a restrained, limited central government. Sure, you may disagree with some of his foreign policy arguements, but the central thesis of a more restrained government is both morally and logically correct. Any “rightist” could agree with that. I realize the nuances of being “post right” and anarchist or whatever are purported to be more complex than even requiring the advocacy of a limited state or not; that does not negate the idea that one would want a more limited state if one were on the right in whatever esoteric fashion one claimed as a guiding principle. If you want a more active state, you are necessarily less conservative/minarchist/libertarian than if you do not. But go ahead and trash Friedman and Hayek anyways- this deconstructivism on the right you find here is insatiable in its appetite for erudite “post radical Hobbesianism” and leaves one with a bad vision of intellectual hermitism Ayn Rand would scoff at.
Michael, interesting theory.
Tripp, a few things:
A. You may be right about Wilkinson, but I’m not sure how that is appurtenant to this conversation I don’t quite get. Will is entitled to his opinions, right or wrong, but at no point have I mentioned him or his thoughts or defended them. I’m not familiar with his debate with Goldberg, but NR is hardly the epitome of anti-statism, anyhow.
B. “Furthermore, it takes a very naive view of human nature to believe government institutions can somehow inevitably and perpetually escape misuse, corruption, inefficiency, and abuse for the true good of the public. If anyone here reads Nozick or even the British empiricists they would see the fallacy behind an advocacy for anything other than a night watchman state.”
Have I defended anything other than a night watchman state? No. I’ve made quite clear that I’m an anti-statist — whatever exactly that means. Whether that sort of extreme libertarianism is healthy — that is, whether there’s any fallacy, as you suggest, in advocating anything but the most minimal state — I think, remains up for debate, notwithstanding your insistence otherwise. As many do, you seem to fall into the trap of conflating conservatism with libertarianism (See below.), but they’re not the same thing. Goldwater, in suggesting that to be truly conservative one must espouse social libertarianism, was wrong. A long line of thinkers we may call conservatives or proto-conservatives argued against minarchism; we face a difficulty in today knowing of “the state” only in its modern conception, and thus being unable, or unwilling, to conceive of the country — the patria, something positively impossible here but certainly reasonable in the Old World.
C. Levin isn’t advocating a “restrained, limited central government”, as you claim. In some respects, he is, but he’s a capitalist and an imperialist. Capitalism and the State rely upon each other; that’s as plain as day.
D. “If you want a more active state, you are necessarily less conservative/minarchist/libertarian than if you do not.”
Again, you’re conflating conservatism and libertarianism. Yes, a small state is good, but what is necessary to be a libertarian/minarchist is not necessary to be a conservative. Cf. Burke, the Tories and British One-Nation Conservatism, Christian Democrats, and so on.
E. “But go ahead and trash Friedman and Hayek anyways- this deconstructivism on the right you find here is insatiable in its appetite for erudite “post radical Hobbesianism” and leaves one with a bad vision of intellectual hermitism Ayn Rand would scoff at.”
I have trashed neither Friedman nor Hayek; nor does anything I have said suggest any sort of Hobbesianism. Finally, if Rand would scoff, then, on principle, sign me up. She is the the antithesis of conservatism in human form.
Here’s the thrust of my point- there are differences between libertarians and conservatives ( more appropriately non- “movement conservatives”) but they are not mutually exclusive and so ideologically opposed as one might think. I happen to listen to Mark Levin’s show on a pretty regular basis, and listen even more to Neal Boortz (neo-libertarian, as it were). What I find is that when these two get together, their agreement revolves around lower taxes, less spending, and a strong foreign policy. You term Levin an “imperialist” which honestly I think is a misnomer. I have never heard Levin spout Rudyard Kipling or Cecil Rhodes-esque rants about the need for a renewed, American empire for Americans, screw everybody else- that type of thing. What Levin wants is to fight terrorists motivated by Islam, simply put, and weed out their bases. I don’t see anything wrong with that-it is logically more than conceivable that without such actions terrorists would be more enabled to attack here at home again. The same goes for Boortz.
This brings me to my thoughts on the belief in limited government in conservatism and libertarianism, or minarchism, or anarcho capitalism. Calling conservatives imperialist advocates of the military industrial complex and big business presents an all encompassing tent that especially in the past few months has become less and less applicable to many conservatives- I’ll cite the people who run The American Spectator and the Hoover Institution explicitly. True, there are some members of National Review, arguably the most important purveyor of movement conservatism or at least the most influential one, who miss the point about limited government being the desired goal in any policy or philisophical discussion. Rich Lowry, Ramesh Ponnuru, and others are frequent culprits of such. Jonah Goldberg, who I’ll defend however, I believe fears an over-powerful state more than a lot of so called “pro-limited government folks”; it can be discerned from his book, for instance.
I suppose what I’m trying to get across here is that the vitriolic statements being spouted between conflicted Rothbardians, disaffected ex Republican foreign policy realists/isolationists, Goldwaterite or Reaganite movement conservatives, and dedicated loyal subscribers to the Weekly Standard, ought not forget what I believe is evident as their common link- a belief in lower taxes and lower government spending, above all else. Getting lost in the esoterica of the definition debate of conservatism or even “the right” itself misses the point-fighting big government.
>>>”Levin isn’t advocating a “restrained, limited central government”, as you claim”<<<
You lost me at this point. Sorry, but I simply cannot take anyone seriously who makes such a claim. The necessity of restrained, limited government (as opposed to anarchy or just a bunch of atomistic individuals) is one of Levin’s maxims, something that he repeats time and again in his writings and on the air.
Harry, as I noted in the very point that you reject, it is impossible, however much Levin talks the limited-government talk, to be a supporter of foreign intervention as Levin is an actually to advocate restrained, limited government.
He may partially do so, but military expansionism — American exceptionalism at its worst and most extreme — is diametrically opposed to restrained government. He can call for a dismantling of the welfare state ’til the cows come home and the wives shoot their husbands, but he’s a neocon and, thus, not an advocate of limited government. QED.
Nathan, you’re forgetting about Mark Levin’s strong support for torture and his opposition to habeas corpus when fighting the war of terror. I’m still amazed that some people think a decentralized republic could properly function with perpetual warfare and the abandonement of the rule of law.
Alberta,
How could I have forgotten?! *sigh* Thanks for the added points.
“Getting lost in the esoterica of the definition debate of conservatism or even “the right” itself misses the point-fighting big government.”
I suppose I must belabor the point. Regardless of what he claims to believe, what he says about limiting domestic spending, and so on, Levin, as an interventionist who supports the “War on Terror” and torture, is not fighting big government. He’s fighting only a part of it, a less important part than the Wilsonianism that he supports.
I concede that, just maybe, I have become a little too obsessed with Mark Levin and his antics
Maybe you should up your meds?
“I concede that, just maybe, I have become a little too obsessed with Mark Levin and his antics, the wickedness of that is Happy Meal conservatism, and the entire kerfuffle that led to the coining of the term “prefabricon”, to the point that I now occasionally peruse Levin’s Website, looking to see what sort of silliness I may find and reading summaries of each day’s show.”
I concede that just maybe I have become a little too concerned with what the “backbenchers” say about our leader. To paraphrase Mark, I would encourage you all to ignore them. “They are irrelevant.”
To which “our leader” do you refer, William?
OK OK I’ll be goaded into this.. “our leader” refers to the topic of your post. To whom else would it refer?
Well, William, given that Mr. Levin has no position of leadership in the GOP or any political job, I struggled to figure out exactly how he is anyone’s leader, other than the sheeple’s.
Right, we’re “sheeples.” Right.
And what position do you hold? Is anyone who considers you a leader – i.e., one who leads, be that in ideas or in a political manner – a sheeple as well?
What kind of, excuse me for this puerility but I can’t see how to avoid it, cheap cop out is it to say that he “has no position of leadership in the GOP of any political job?” What position do you hold? Constant nagger? Ankle biter?
Are we supposed to depend on our currently ineffectual politicians to get us out of the Obama debacle?
Actually, you’re sheeple, not sheeples. But I nitpick.
I don’t hold any position — not of leadership, anyway. I just call ‘em as I see ‘em. I hope to God, for the sake of all of mankind, that no one follows me. If a few people take something from what I say, all the better, but I make no pretense of being a leader.
What kind of, excuse me for this puerility but I can’t see how to avoid it, cheap cop out is it to say that he “has no position of leadership in the GOP of any political job?” What position do you hold? Constant nagger? Ankle biter?
Again, I hold no position. I’m just a commentator, and a second-rate one at that (if not worse). But that’s all Levin is, too. His audience is bigger, but he’s nothing more than a talking-head — and an unoriginal one at that. Anyone views him as a leader has some serious issues w/r/t thinking for himself.
Are we supposed to depend on our currently ineffectual politicians to get us out of the Obama debacle?
And Levin offers an alternative how?
Just when will you purported conservatives wake up? Elections demand voters, and getting voters to care and VOTE requires mobilization. That people find Levin stirring, honest, articulate, and (this is his sin in your eyes I take it) entertaining is GOOD for the GOP.
He, along with other talkers, play an indispensible role for the GOP. First, by keeping Republican politicians conservative, and second, by getting citizens across the nation engaged in the political process. This is healthy for the country.
I find it breathtakingly naive that so many petulant bloggers see talk radio as too offensive for political discourse. What, one may ask fairly, is more mucky than politics? This is hardly a new development in history. While some conservatives put their good manners and effusive, obsequious speech ahead of confrontation, debate, and, yes, sometimes caricature, talk radio does not shy away. It is town hall where real people express their real sentiments, and sometimes the polite speech of the debating team gives way to visceral emotion.
This is another way of relating the epiphany that humans are still human.
Great news, folks: Dan Riehl has called me an “apparent moron”: http://www.riehlworldview.com/carnivorous_conservative/2009/06/the-new-lsd.html
I’m a little creeped out that he’s linking to my Facebook profile, but, hey, whatever. Whatever the sagacious Riehl says, I like my damn cowboy hat. Not that I’d expect anything interesting from someone who thinks that “prefabricon” isn’t an insult.
Oh, and Mr. Riehl, I’m actually on my family’s farm in that now non-accessible picture. Use your eyes.
Riehl should know better. You’re a Mental Case, not a moron. Heh.
Yes, you do nitpick. That’s part of the problem. A coalition that has a thousand shades and variants that all must be expressed – in other words, if the coalition lacks an overarching, organizing philosophy – in this case, liberty – cannot win. Constant legislative tinkering will never win an election, thoughtful or not. Why is this? Because disengaged voters have enough trouble following one line of thought.
“Again, I hold no position. I’m just a commentator, and a second-rate one at that (if not worse). But that’s all Levin is, too. His audience is bigger, but he’s nothing more than a talking-head — and an unoriginal one at that. Anyone views him as a leader has some serious issues w/r/t thinking for himself.”
What’s the point of a commentator? To get someone to think, perhaps? Maybe some people who listen to Levin absorb his political philosophy, and then explore some of the seminal thinkers? He does not claim originality. He cites his sources: among them Madison, Jefferson, Locke, Mises, Hayek, and St. Augustine.
And what does a leader do? They inspire, they paint a vision, and organize to effect change. Levin has done and will continue to do that. That’s where having an audience comes in.
A refutation:
“Well, William, given that Mr. Levin has no position of leadership in the GOP or any political job, I struggled to figure out exactly how he is anyone’s leader, other than the sheeple’s.”
Does it matter at all that Mr. Levin was a top advisor to multiple high officials in the Reagan administration, including chief of staff for a conservative hero, Ed Meese?
Just when will you purported conservatives wake up? Elections demand voters, and getting voters to care and VOTE requires mobilization. That people find Levin stirring, honest, articulate, and (this is his sin in your eyes I take it) entertaining is GOOD for the GOP.
Conservatism is cultural first and political second. Political successes (when they occur — Cf. Abortion politics and the GOP) are generally fleeting, and are quite useless when the culture remains fundamentally liberal (that is, individualistic). Moreover, the GOP not only does not equal conservatism, mutually inclusive, but barely is conservative. Conservative liberal, perhaps, but not conservative.
He, along with other talkers, play an indispensible role for the GOP. First, by keeping Republican politicians conservative, and second, by getting citizens across the nation engaged in the political process. This is healthy for the country.
How does someone who supports the “War on Terror” and torture keep the party conservative? Torture is prohibited by both any standard of human decency and by the Geneva Convention. Ergo, torture is un-Constitutional. Some Constitutional scholar Levin is! Right up there with our president…
This is another way of relating the epiphany that humans are still human.
Spare me pointless tautology, please.
Yes, you do nitpick. That’s part of the problem. A coalition that has a thousand shades and variants that all must be expressed – in other words, if the coalition lacks an overarching, organizing philosophy – in this case, liberty – cannot win. Constant legislative tinkering will never win an election, thoughtful or not. Why is this? Because disengaged voters have enough trouble following one line of thought.
An “organizing philosophy” of liberty does not mesh well, again, with support for the “War on Terror”, torture, and the deceptively named USA PATRIOT Act. A coalition dedicated to liberty that advocates this noxious policies is neither a coalition to which I belong nor one that I wish to see victorious.
“Again, I hold no position. I’m just a commentator, and a second-rate one at that (if not worse). But that’s all Levin is, too. His audience is bigger, but he’s nothing more than a talking-head — and an unoriginal one at that. Anyone views him as a leader has some serious issues w/r/t thinking for himself.”
What’s the point of a commentator? To get someone to think, perhaps? Maybe some people who listen to Levin absorb his political philosophy, and then explore some of the seminal thinkers? He does not claim originality. He cites his sources: among them Madison, Jefferson, Locke, Mises, Hayek, and St. Augustine.
The lack of originality I bemoan is not the one that you suggest. I cite Aristotle, Aquinas, Jefferson, Burke, Kirk, Belloc, and so on. But I’m willing, as are my compeers here at Post Right and all around TAC and the “alternative Right”, to question the shibboleths that mar contemporary “conservatism”. Whether Madison and Locke, in the end, are really all that worthy of citation I question, but that’s a side-note.
A refutation:
“Well, William, given that Mr. Levin has no position of leadership in the GOP or any political job, I struggled to figure out exactly how he is anyone’s leader, other than the sheeple’s.”
Does it matter at all that Mr. Levin was a top advisor to multiple high officials in the Reagan administration, including chief of staff for a conservative hero, Ed Meese?
This only matters if we’re still living in the 1980s. Notwithstanding pathetic Reagan idolatry that infects the GOP, we’re not. And Meese is no hero to me. It’s hard to associate with Heritage, Claremont, and spender extraordinaire Reagan and to be my hero.
“This only matters if we’re still living in the 1980s.”
I’m tempted to throw in Aristotle and say he only matters if we’re still living in 300BC. But I think that we can now agree your reasoning is silly, to Aristotle and Reagan equally. (Allow me to be explicit: I am not equating Reagan to Aristotle. I am exploding your poor reasoning regarding deference to past figures.)
Now it seems awfully strange to declare that conservatism is not particularly useful in politics, and yet make a living off conservative political journalism. I am a firm believer that culture is the ultimate determinant of society’s future, and would tend to agree that government corrupts culture insofar it oversteps its Constitutional limits; albeit this is not necessarily true, history suggests that cradle-to-grave government is instrumental in the impoverishment of souls. It erodes self reliance. On the other hand, Liberalism (that is, classical liberalism), encourages virtue and punishes deceit. On this point, I think we can agree. There are finer points to be made regarding capitalism that I will not venture into at this juncture, instead deferring specifically to Mises and Michael Novak.
Water boarding is not torture. It is eminently moral, and, I believe, justifiable along Thomistic lines (principle of double effect, though I claim no authority on these matters). A murdering, scheming, treacherous, religiously driven terrorist who has critical information regarding an imminent attack on an American city must be interrogated harshly. We’re hardly hanging them from meat hooks and twisting in the thumb screws.
I sense a strong isolationist streak. Nobody commits to war lightly. However, when the enemy is well funded, driven by their own fear of God, and hell bent on killing as many westerners as possible, what is our alternative? 9/11 was proof that they will strike the American homeland. You seem to be religiously inclined, and hence take religious ideas seriously. I would recommend taking some time and understanding Islam from the religious and historical perspectives. Once you feel you have an understanding of the fundamentalist mentality, consider that there are approx. 1 billion Muslims, many receptive to extremism.
I don’t know what the alternative Right is. If it is a cultural/political movement distinct from traditional conservatism, then count me out. I am a Constitutionalist when it comes to government, and do not believe in the State’s authority to punish every minor moral transgression according to a specific religious creed. This was tried for thousands of years, and was ended here with the first amendment. If members of this alternative right wish to sequester themselves within the confines America, then I support their right of private property insofar as it goes. But burgeoning Federal authority will make that impossible, which is why we need an effective political counter to modern day “liberalism.”
In my view that is conservatism, and Levin leads a substantial coalition.
“This only matters if we’re still living in the 1980s.” I’m tempted to throw in Aristotle and say he only matters if we’re still living in 300BC. But I think that we can now agree your reasoning is silly, to Aristotle and Reagan equally. (Allow me to be explicit: I am not equating Reagan to Aristotle. I am exploding your poor reasoning regarding deference to past figures.)
You would be exploding my poor reasoning if you understand my point, which you clearly haven’t. Levin would be a leader were we still in the 1980s, when he held positions in the Reagan Administration. We’re not; he no longer does. I made no comment about deference to past figures here. I did, clearly, suggest that the GOP needs to stop blindly and unquestioningly adoring Reagan, but that’s not the same thing as critical, reasonable deference.
Nice try, though.
Now it seems awfully strange to declare that conservatism is not particularly useful in politics, and yet make a living off conservative political journalism.
I never said that it’s not useful. I said that it’s secondary, and that if generally fails. Moreover, I don’t make a living off of journalism of any sort. This is all unpaid blogging that I do because I enjoy writing.
There are finer points to be made regarding capitalism that I will not venture into at this juncture, instead deferring specifically to Mises and Michael Novak.
I’m all for avoiding this topic for now; it’s far too complex itself. I’m not interested in deferring to a sophist like Novak, though. The man would have the world believe that the two most recent popes have approved of the war in Iraq. Perhaps Mises. Maybe.
Water boarding is not torture. It is eminently moral, and, I believe, justifiable along Thomistic lines (principle of double effect, though I claim no authority on these matters).
I reckon we’ll have to disagree on this one, but how one can suggest that forced suffocation and inhalation of water, the illusion of drowning, doesn’t constitute torture baffles me. Then again, I prefer to breathe.
I sense a strong isolationist streak. Nobody commits to war lightly. However, when the enemy is well funded, driven by their own fear of God, and hell bent on killing as many westerners as possible, what is our alternative? 9/11 was proof that they will strike the American homeland.
The war on Iraq was taken seriously? From immediately after 9/11, our leaders were devising plans to justify the unjustifiable. Now, the initial plan to rout Al-Qaeda was, I think, a justifiable one, but we have squandered our resources and our credibility by fighting invisible enemies and non-enemies.
You seem to be religiously inclined, and hence take religious ideas seriously. I would recommend taking some time and understanding Islam from the religious and historical perspectives. Once you feel you have an understanding of the fundamentalist mentality, consider that there are approx. 1 billion Muslims, many receptive to extremism.
How many are many? Moreover, my religions beliefs incline me toward peace, toward eschewing foreign policy that irritates one billion Muslims (e.g., our persistently one-sided policy regarding Israel, a nation that can and should handle its own problems without our intervention).
I don’t know what the alternative Right is. If it is a cultural/political movement distinct from traditional conservatism, then count me out. I am a Constitutionalist when it comes to government, and do not believe in the State’s authority to punish every minor moral transgression according to a specific religious creed. This was tried for thousands of years, and was ended here with the first amendment. If members of this alternative right wish to sequester themselves within the confines America, then I support their right of private property insofar as it goes. But burgeoning Federal authority will make that impossible, which is why we need an effective political counter to modern day “liberalism.”
The alternative Right, to the extent that this nebulous group holds any one stance, advocates a return to traditional conservatism. We look to the non-interventionism of the Taft Republicans, to the wisdom of Kirk. We reject the Federal for the State, the State for the local. We recognize that as long as our government remains hell-bent on practicing Wilsonianism, there will be no buttress against burgeoning Federal authority. That is, we reject both modern conservatism and modern liberalism as divergent wings of the same individualist liberalism that enables the state and elevates the individual over the community.
Levin leads a coalition that is willing to sacrifice “security” for liberty, that is wiling to permit the Federal behemoth to expand for the “right” reasons whilst otherwise offering paeans to small government.
“I’m all for avoiding this topic for now; it’s far too complex itself.”
It isn’t that complex. For our purposes, economics breaks down into understanding marginal utility, and the role that capitalism plays encouraging cooperation.
“How many are many? Moreover, my religions beliefs incline me toward peace, toward eschewing foreign policy that irritates one billion Muslims (e.g., our persistently one-sided policy regarding Israel, a nation that can and should handle its own problems without our intervention).”
I don’t have a number, duh, but as someone who monitors the region, knows some basic history, is familiar with Islam, and has many friends living under these theocratic regimes, I can tell you it’s a lot. Illiteracy in the region is extremely high, and most people, because they aren’t afforded the liberty to pursue a living, are preyed upon by Koran inspired demagoguery. What is more symptomatic of a repressive regime than creating the image of evil foreigners? Baffling to me is the naïveté that drives the belief that if we’d only leave them alone, they’d like us. This conveys a quixotic, if not Panglossian, optimism. One wonders if you’d have said the same thing back in the 30’s and 40’s.
“That is, we reject both modern conservatism and modern liberalism as divergent wings of the same individualist liberalism that enables the state and elevates the individual over the community.”
America elevated the “individual” over the “community,” at least by Old World standards. Showing that individual interests were harmonious was the accomplishment of the Classical Economists. Capitalism first had to prove its moral superiority before it could be justified otherwise, and indeed it did.
“Levin leads a coalition that is willing to sacrifice “security” for liberty, that is wiling to permit the Federal behemoth to expand for the “right” reasons whilst otherwise offering paeans to small government.”
I don’t know the context in which Franklin proclaimed his famous warning, but I would imagine the security he was referring to was not physical safety, but the false security of paternal government. Who denies the importance of physical security, first and foremost? Again, I could be wrong in my interpretation.
“I now occasionally peruse Levin’s Website, looking to see what sort of silliness I may find and reading summaries of each day’s show. (I have yet, I admit, to subject myself to the intellectual-aural persecution that is listening to the program.) ”
Well, then Nathan, if that is your real name, why don’t you shut the hell up? Until you actually listen, take the time to really listen, then you are even one notch BELOW Media Matters as I am certain that they actually listen.
Nicholas, I assure my that Nathan is my real name. Nathan Peter Origer. I’m sure you can find plenty of evidence to back this up. If not, then perhaps it’s because I’m not even just “one notch BELOW Media Matters”, but not even a real human. This entire conversation is a figment of your imagination, though, as a Levin Lemming, I suspect that what you possess hardly qualifies as an imagination. Perhaps paranoia.
Thanks, though, for that injection of intellect into this obviously flaccid discussion!
“I reckon we’ll have to disagree on this one, but how one can suggest that forced suffocation and inhalation of water, the illusion of drowning, doesn’t constitute torture baffles me. Then again, I prefer to breathe.”
Thinking this over, it’s particularly stupid. I prefer not to get shot during war time, but it doesn’t make it torture.
“How many are many? Moreover, my religions beliefs incline me toward peace, toward eschewing foreign policy that irritates one billion Muslims (e.g., our persistently one-sided policy regarding Israel, a nation that can and should handle its own problems without our intervention).”
I don’t have a number, duh, but as someone who monitors the region, knows some basic history, is familiar with Islam, and has many friends living under these theocratic regimes, I can tell you it’s a lot. Illiteracy in the region is extremely high, and most people, because they aren’t afforded the liberty to pursue a living, are preyed upon by Koran inspired demagoguery. What is more symptomatic of a repressive regime than creating the image of evil foreigners? Baffling to me is the naïveté that drives the belief that if we’d only leave them alone, they’d like us. This conveys a quixotic, if not Panglossian, optimism. One wonders if you’d have said the same thing back in the 30’s and 40’s.
You’re damn right I’d have said the same thing. I’d have said it in the 1860s and the 1910s, too. Hell, I’d have said it in 1787, warning that the Constitution would create a war against the States, as it were.
I hope you don’t mean — and enjoy debating with you enough to be charitable enough to believe that you don’t — to suggest that our history of propping up dictator after dictator, our one-sided support of Israel, and so forth, have done nothing to fuel the flames of hatred. I mean not to deny the influence that radical Islamic fundamentalists having in preying upon those who don’t know better, but I also don’t, for one moment, believe that they’d have much reason for hating us as they do.
“That is, we reject both modern conservatism and modern liberalism as divergent wings of the same individualist liberalism that enables the state and elevates the individual over the community.”
America elevated the “individual” over the “community,” at least by Old World standards. Showing that individual interests were harmonious was the accomplishment of the Classical Economists. Capitalism first had to prove its moral superiority before it could be justified otherwise, and indeed it did.
You’re right to suggest that America did this — or, at least, a part, the “winning” side, did. One can make the argument, as I have elsewhere, that at least some of the Anti-Federalists sought this “middle ground” of community, of localism, between the extremes of statism and individualism (which, I continue to contend, naturally inclines toward the hegemony of the state) Therein lies the heart of my beef with American conservatism — its fundamentally liberal composition.
I do not believe that capitalism has in any meaningful way proved its moral superiority. Relative to socialism, perhaps, but both are, at best, amoral, materialistic ideologies, rejecting the transcendental for the immediate, the Good for “good”.
“Levin leads a coalition that is willing to sacrifice “security” for liberty, that is wiling to permit the Federal behemoth to expand for the “right” reasons whilst otherwise offering paeans to small government.”
I don’t know the context in which Franklin proclaimed his famous warning, but I would imagine the security he was referring to was not physical safety, but the false security of paternal government. Who denies the importance of physical security, first and foremost? Again, I could be wrong in my interpretation.
I don’t, in any way, the importance of physical safety. What I deny is the systematic denial of Constitutional rights because one incident scared the Bejesus out of us and provided the Republican administration with pretense for expanding the Levianthan — something wholly not at all foreign to the party.
Thinking this over, it’s particularly stupid. I prefer not to get shot during war time, but it doesn’t make it torture.
You know, William, I was really starting to enjoy debating you, then you came up with something ineffably nonsensical, irrelevant, and illogical that I can only recommend this to you:
http://www.amazon.com/Deductive-Logic-Warren-Goldfarb/dp/0872206602/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1246482514&sr=8-1
Being shot in the midst of war is so completely different from being tortured once you are out of the battle and in the custody of your enemy that I’m pretty sure only one statement has ever captured the appropriate reply to your unbelievably obtuse statement:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fEkWH8DB7b0
There are two ways to address the allegation that water boarding is torture, and therefore should be stopped. I will do my best to outline them here, but before doing so, I believe it is important to point out that terrorists have no Geneva Convention rights. The rules of engagement in warfare were, like any other system of protections, based upon reciprocity. A terrorist by definition is not a member of a standing army, wears no uniform, carries no flag; therefore they are not entitled to the same rights as soldiers. I am not advocating, again, thumb screws, bull whips, electrocution, or the iron maiden, but the American military needs an effective way to extract life saving information.
The first reason I have in mind comes from my (limited) knowledge of battlefield customs. Professional soldiers are generally loathe to engage in wholesale killing or torture of captured enemies. When such incidences do occur, they result in court marshals followed likely by the firing squad. Having said that, it requires a willing suspension of belief to think that people are completely in control of themselves in the theatre of combat. World War 2 is filled with stories of cruelty on both sides. When allied soldiers summarily executed Nazi prisoners, was this excessive? Who is to make such a determination, in this case, when dealing with an enemy that has proved so deeply inhuman that they systemized an extermination of an entire nation? It might be clichéd, but war is hell. And so it follows that along the spectrum of war time atrocities, some water down a murderous neo-Nazis throat is hard to get excited about. Historically speaking, water boarding is laughably innocuous.
The second reason is that we do it to our own troops. Would the United States torture their own soldiers? No, but we subject a select few to water boarding. If the topic were not water boarding but a bathtub, a battery, and jumper cables, do you think that the U.S. military would be quick to electricity in training? Furthermore, do you think any American soldier would sign up for a training program that involved torture? It is ridiculous to, on one hand, insist we refrain from torturing because it encourages the enemy to subject our own soldiers to the same treatment, and then go ahead and beat them to the punch.
Would Al Qaeda only use simulated drowning. No, instead the lighted touch from them we get are religious ritual beheadings. The rest of their tactics are unmentionable in polite company and would make even Mengele blush.
Excuse the typos in the above post…
Further observation: I do enjoy the debate, but it has occurred to me that I am not debating a modern conservative. Nathan, you seem to me to be against modern society, in general favoring a return to small town governance and tightly integrated communities. I have sympathy with this longing, but I can’t foresee it actually happening. Due to capitalism, the world is becoming increasingly integrated. Markets are global, not local. Division of labor is global, not local. Small town shops feature websites that make their products available around the world. Capital markets reflect world prices. There is no turning back this voluntary progress unless we adopt a horribly repressive government.
I don’t think the “alternative Right” (I got that phrase from you) is viable at all electorally. It is very far out of step with the majority of Americans, and Westerners in general. I am a social conservative, against abortion and supportive of the nuclear family, but I would never seriously expect America to go back to “Our Town.” Morality and self-control are ultimately independent of the social systems in a free country. In America we punish illegal action, but we do not punish non-criminal activity, even if it is blatantly sinful. (Despite the irritated left’s protestations, George Bush was no theocrat!) I consider this in line with Biblical teaching, and promote the blessings of liberty.
William, you’re right to note that you’re “not debating a modern conservative.” I don’t know that many contributors here fit into that category.
I am not, however, “against modern society”, at least not per se. I have no interest in turning back the clock; I’m more interested, in Röpke’s words, in setting it right.
http://nathancontramundi.wordpress.com/2008/07/29/a-clarification-on-my-own-behalf-we-do-not-want-to-set-the-clock-back-we-want-to-set-it-right/
(Ignore the strange obsession I had with hyphenating anything and everything at the time, please.)
Your accurate comments on capitalism are why I’m opposed thereto, why I support localism politically and economically. It may be something of a pipe-dream, but I don’t think it’s impossible without political repression. The first step, I think, simply requires an end to what Mr. Levin referred to, when speaking about Phillips, as crony capitalism. An end to the subsidization of the big over the small may not halt our “progress”, but it would certainly slow it. Part of it, too, involves conscious choice — the willingness to spend a little more at Nathan’s Hardware or William’s Grocery than at the Home Depot or Wal*Mart (my favorite bugbear).
I’ll agree that the “alternative Right” is electorally viable. I don’t think any of us expect it to be, at least en masse. A state rep here, maybe a US Congressman there. The “alt. Right”, itself, is too broad to speak of electorally, anyway, I think. You’ll find sympathizers of Buchanan and Ron Paul (one of our few electoral successes), as well as of Ralph Nader (notwithstanding, say, his seriously problematic social liberalism) and the left-conservatism of Normal Mailer.
This is why I’m not opposed to supporting the GOP, of which, technically, I’m still a registered member. I’m a “social conservative”, too — although I’m uncomfortable with the term, precisely because I believe that, ultimately, the philosophical classical liberalism underlying American conservatism is in tension with — perhaps not necessarily opposed to, though — social conservatism. Promotion of economic (classical) liberalism is one thing, but support for capitalism as it exists today, I think, strains the family and the community in ways that ultimately do greater harm than good.
Cheers.
“This is why I’m not opposed to supporting the GOP, of which, technically, I’m still a registered member. I’m a “social conservative”, too — although I’m uncomfortable with the term, precisely because I believe that, ultimately, the philosophical classical liberalism underlying American conservatism is in tension with — perhaps not necessarily opposed to, though — social conservatism. Promotion of economic (classical) liberalism is one thing, but support for capitalism as it exists today, I think, strains the family and the community in ways that ultimately do greater harm than good.”
I just read this over, and I think I may be able to help, provided I am understanding you correctly. If by “capitalism as it exists today,” you mean the quasi-capitalism of the current United States that regularly brings about giant recessions and depressions, resulting in years of suffering for millions of its citizens, there is a good answer.
A large capitalist country that is highly technological and tightly integrated cannot survive too much severely damaging government intervention before it finds itself under socialism or close. This, I would think anyway, is a core belief of Ron Paul’s.
Does this not eliminate much of the tension?
to Alberta Blue,
i am torture torture torture torture torture
i want evry arab or islamic terrorist to get the message
hamas hezbolah and cair alll other terrorist
to think 50000000000000000000000000000000000000 times
if they want to attack the U.S
so torture evry day more information the better
alberto gorin
a.gorin@planet.nl
Nathan,
First of all, don’t be alarmed by your obsession with The Great One. Over 5.5 million people listen a week. Besides, it is a good thing to be addicted to.
Second, Mark said Phillips was crony capitalism because there would be laws sending customers their direction, (the lightbulb efficiancy regulation,) in ways smaller companies would not be able to adjust to. He was not talking about any government subsidizing at all. As far as I can tell, he would not support that for any size business. And in fact it seems to be the opposite is occuring with all sorts of tax increases on larger business in the near future. By the way, Nathan’s business will probably also be hurt by these tax changes.
And it seems you do not like big companies such as Wal mart. They are one of the biggest employers in the country. If their business would be reduced, as you seem to say you would like to see, that could very easily result in many loosing their jobs. The burden is not on them to make their own prices the same as the small stores, the burden is on the small stores to find a way to compete in the market.
you did chip in with some decisive insght at the end there, not leave it with
This is a great article, I found a link to this from Levin’s “deranged bloggers” section on his website. Levin obviously has problems with true liberty loving Conservatives like yourself. Seeing that he loves the big government warfare/welfare state.
Levin is a typical NEO-CON.
Nathan:
I think you miss Levins point totally. He is for mediation by a limited government through an original constitution. Your communitarianism is nothing more than a white washed socialism. Limited government and free markets are necessary for man’s welfare.
Socialism is socialism no matter what you call it and it does not work because of the nature of man. You cannot turn a dog into a cat just as you cannot turn a man into a selfless automaton.
Levin is not as liberty minded as I would like and the criticism I have with him is that he uses certain definitions like crony capitalism to define statist methodology. They are not capitalists. However his book is a good start.
I have never understodd the liberal mind set; with their ignoring the constitution, and peoples right to earrn their own way in this world without the government trying to steal from these hard working people and trying to give it to others who wont get their asses work themselves; instead expecting the government to provide for them through others hard work and diligence.
The problem with all this is with obama shutting down drilling here in america and striking at fossil fuel, we are all going to be looking for work, we’ve already seen the result of this, in companies laying off left and right.
I work for Lebus international and have seen for myself this situation ; people dont understand that this country runs on oil and fossil fuel.
if people want to go green fine, but you have bring on graduelly, not all at once so that most people cant provide for their families and pay their bills.
but this is all common sense; come on people this is not about either political party, it is about our country that we seem insistant on giving away.
I’m a washed up out of touch old racist Jew whose only politcal experoence was 2 generations ago