A Response to Matt Barganier

Over at Antiwar.com, Matt Barganier took issue with my last post about non-interventionist rhetoric and the mainstream Right. Some of his points reveal instances in which my argument was imprecise, so I should clarify a few of my assertions. Beyond that, however, we clearly disagree on a major issue.

Barganier wrote:

But, of course, we do make coldly consequentialist, self-interested arguments against militarism, war, and empire. We also make arguments on moral grounds, from a number of different starting points (including conservative Christianity, which I hear this GOP base is really into). Why make this an either/or matter? Why should we drop half (or more) of our arguments when they don’t conflict with the other half?

I now realize I was unclear in my earlier post. I should not have implied that non-interventionists must never argue from moral grounds. Rather, I simply think these arguments are not helpful when preaching to the Hannitized, and should therefore be avoided when attempting to persuade them. Barganier, however, clearly thinks arguing with them at all is a waste of time:

As for learning from Limbaugh and Levin, please. I know their audience. I was born into it. If I ever write a political memoir, I’ll name it Up From Hannity. There is a Reasonable Right worth reaching out to, but it ain’t in talk radio.

I am not so sure. Having also been “born into” this audience, I am less convinced that a good portion of the Ditto-heads cannot be convinced by anti-war arguments. I just think they must be framed correctly. There may be a “Reasonable Right,” as Barganier says, but it will never be a major force if we do not at least make some inroads into the Limbaugh-listening community. Perhaps I’m mistaken that many Fox News fans can be brought around. Unfortunately, if I am  there will never again be a politically-significant anti-war Right; the “Reasonable Right” will forever be drowned out by the millions of talk-radio fans united in their belligerence.

If you think most self-described conservatives really hate Big Government, then you stopped paying attention sometime around, oh, the Nixon administration. Good God, man, if they hated Big Government, wouldn’t they at least dislike the most wasteful and intrusive government programs of them all, from the War on Terror to the War on Drugs? No, they love Big Government, from its big, fat boots to its big, fat head. Oh, they’re angry that some of the loot falls on the, um… undeserving, but that won’t stop them from sucking the teats of Social Security and Medicare to the shape and texture of a deflated football.

If I gave the impression that I think the mainstream conservative movement is consistent in its opposition to Big Government, I apologize. I am well aware of the hypocrisy of those who claim to support “limited government” while expanding the empire and pumping up the welfare state. Barganier did touch on an important point when describing populist conservative anger when “loot falls on the … undeserving.” This is actually the sentiment I think non-interventionists should exploit when preaching to this crowd.

Although the idea is ludicrous and utterly offensive, the Hannitys and Limbaughs actually believe we’re doing people a favor when we attack their countries — hence the idiotic celebrations of purple fingers. I think the proper response when arguing with mainstream conservatives is that these people are “undeserving” of our invasions. I think more progress can be made with this crowd by declaring “Iraqi freedom” unworthy of one dollar or one drop of American blood. I think we can outflank the neocons on the callous, tough-guy front by mocking the dewy-eyed, saccharine balderdash they spew every time an Arab votes or an Afghan girl trades in her burqa for a niqāb with empowering eye slits.

I think the cause of non-interventionism can take advantage of the “Screw them!” instincts that drive much of the conservative movement. As absurd as it may sound to us, I think talking about the War Machine’s victims as though they are ungrateful welfare queens is our best shot at converting the mega-dittos crowd.

3 Responses to “A Response to Matt Barganier”

  1. You make some good points. But I’d like to ask those who take the “ungrateful welfare queens” approach to at least start with some people the term actually fits.

  2. We could also try to convince them through the money issue. I’m sure some of them understand that soaring defecits, trillion dollar debt, and our dependecy on foreign capital don’t make for a strong national defense. We just have to connect that with billion dollar embassies that we can’t afford in Afganistan, and Pakistan, and the costs of runnng 700 bases worldwide. If that doesn’t work…..well there’s always the liberals.

  3. [...] Hawley responds: Having also been “born into” this audience, I am less convinced that a good portion of the Ditto-heads cannot be convinced by anti-war arguments. I just think they must be framed correctly. There may be a “Reasonable Right,” as Barganier says, but it will never be a major force if we do not at least make some inroads into the Limbaugh-listening community. Perhaps I’m mistaken that many Fox News fans can be brought around. Unfortunately, if I am  there will never again be a politically-significant anti-war Right; the “Reasonable Right” will forever be drowned out by the millions of talk-radio fans united in their belligerence. [...]

Leave a Reply