Why the GOP Won’t Win One For the Gipper

I am accustomed to reading idiotic things in the news every morning. Today’s winner was the attack on Newt Gingrich because he committed the unspeakable crime of possibly denouncing or criticizing the Great One, our dearly departed Great Leader, the Gipper himself, Ronald Reagan. I am not a fan of Newt Gingrich. Everyone who reads this blog, all ten of you, know that I am a Ron Paul supporter. But I’m even less of a fan of the Jipper, for reasons I think adequately explained here. Of course I don’t agree with everything in the linked piece, but…

Anyway, it is really a sad and pathetic commentary on the state of conservatism and the GOP today that one’s reverence or lack thereof for Reagan remains a vital test of acceptability, moreso for the punditocracy than the people themselves, for whom the ex-prez is a fading memory. This Leninesque personality cult certainly befits the style and motives of the ex-Trotskyite cadre that subverted the American Right in the last 30 years or so, but it really has become a debilitating disease that has caused more harm than good for those of us who actually want the size of government reduced, the budget balanced, the Fed reigned in, and the Constitution restored.

The most obvious sign of Gipperitus is the much-lamented “chaos” of the GOP primary taking place now, with no candidate emerging as the “true conservative” (as if that were important as the true constitutionalist, and we know who that is – sigh). This is largely due, in my opinion, to the shadow of Reagan. He was so charismatic that he made everyone forget his flaws and his treachery against their own principles – and everyone who came after him has paled in comparison to his public presence. The GOP has been unable to produce a single individual capable of recapturing even to a small degree what he possessed. The “coalition” of social conservatives, war hawks, and libertarians, which was really more of a universal toadying as opposed to some sort of principled alliance, is shattered. So the whole fraud has unraveled, and the GOP stands exposed as a party of confused, inconsistent, callous hypocrites.

Never mind how the left sees the party; the success of Ron Paul is proof enough that this is how many independents and conservatives see it as well. The real test will come at this year’s convention: will they let him speak? Will they even try to negotiate with him, as Charles Krauthammer has suggested? Or will it be more of the same unbelievable, breathtaking arrogance and condescension?

Silence is Instructive: Distributism’s Follies

A friend of my posted an article from The Distributist Review on his Facebook page by David W. Cooney titled “Will The Real Capitalism Please Stand Up?”, presumably because he agreed with the content and thought it was a smashing piece. Articles like this, though, are one of the reasons I could no longer contribute to this publication or go out of my way to endorse Distributism (even though I do support the basic principle behind it). The problem isn’t so much with Cooney’s arguments; the problem is that to even explain why his, or any other contributor’s arguments might be wrong in a way that might suggest that capitalism isn’t the devil simply cannot be tolerated by this crowd.

Let’s take a look at some of his arguments. Right at the beginning, he states:

Capitalists wonder why we distributists oppose capitalism. Distributists, on the other hand, wonder why so many good people continue to support it. I think the problem lies in the fact that there is no consistently held definition of capitalism.

One might think, in the interests of fairness and accuracy, that the definition that people who say they support capitalism use for the word capitalism is relevant. Not so for Cooney, or for any other Distributist I have known for that matter. The links he offers up in attempting to explain it lead to traditionalist anti-capitalist polemics; the definition he offers is more or less guesswork. It’s “what he’s heard”, not even from Wikipedia or some other easily accessible source. One trip to the Mises website might even suffice. Having established what pro-capitalists think capitalism is, a fair and honest critique might ensue, instead of demolition derby in which poorly-constructed arguments supposedly representing the other side are crushed by a monster truck of specious logic and invective.

Pro-Life Libertarianism?

Note: This is a blog post I wrote for a different blog over a year ago. I have edited it a bit since the original contained references to things occurring at the blog at that time that are no longer relevant.

Recent discussions have raised doubts about the plausibility of a pro-life libertarian position. In this post, I will argue that the only conception of libertarianism I find plausible and coherent necessitates a pro-life position.

First, we must define terms. What does it mean to be pro-life, and what does it mean to be a libertarian? I would submit that as with virtually all political ideologies, there are different factions with different conceptions of what it means to adhere to that ideology. Within libertarianism there are generally recognized “right” and “left” factions, and others who do not find these distinctions useful. There are anarchists and minarchists, individualists and collectivists. And there are plenty in each camp that will declare the others not to be “true libertarians.”

Though some may have a problem with resorting to Wikipedia, I’m going to assume that interested libertarians keep tabs on it, and state – for what little it may be worth – that I find the definitions offered here to be consistent with what libertarian literature I have read on my own:

Libertarianism is the advocacy of individual liberty, especially freedom of thought and action.^[1] Roderick T. Long defines libertarianism as “any political position that advocates a radical redistribution of power [either "total or merely substantial"] from the coercive state to voluntary associations of free individuals”, whether “voluntary association” takes the form of the free market or of communal co-operatives.^[2] David Boaz writes that, “Libertarianism is the view that each person has the right to live his life in any way he chooses so long as he respects the equal rights of others” and that, “Libertarians defend each person’s right to life, liberty, and property–rights that people have naturally, before governments are created.”^[3]

On the face of it, I see nothing here that would contradict the pro-life position, which is simply that unborn human beings are worthy of the same defense mentioned here as born human beings. But one of our contributors has raised the following objection, re-stated in a manner I found a bit more understandable by one of our readers in the comment boxes (no offense to the contributor, who acknowledged this as an accurate representation of his views, intended):

[L]ibertarianism has no way of adjudicating between competing claims of rights–in this case [of abortion], the right to property versus the right to life–so that any adjudication of this issue must rely upon extra-libertarian premises. Perhaps the libertarian would say, “Well, the right to life is more basic than the right to property, so in cases where they conflict, the right to life would have to take priority.” But on what basis would he make this determination? (my emphasis)

This is certainly a worthy objection to raise, but I think it contains a crucial flaw: that “adjudication of this issue must rely upon extra-libertarian premises.” As I will show, there are libertarian premises that actually do provide for this very task, but they are not accepted by all libertarians. I would argue that libertarians who cannot accept these premises are the ones who are not “true” libertarians, in fact. Also problematic is the very notion that it is a right to life and a right to property that are in conflict; as I will argue below, this is not the case.

New Focus

Hello readers,

You may have noticed that I made my blog private for a couple of weeks. This is because I was doing a bit of soul-searching and spiritual renewal.

It has become clear to me that I need to do two things at this time in my life (well, among other things that aren’t relevant for this blog): 1) I need to focus on my vocation, and 2) make use of the talents God gave me, preferably at the same time.

I have done this partially with this blog, and with much of what I have written over the last few years. But I’ve also gotten involved in a number of topics that I probably didn’t need to be engaged in at the level I was engaged with them at.

Those of you who know what my “position” is on the situation in the Catholic Church can know that it hasn’t changed. I believe now what I came to believe over the last year. But I’ve come to believe a few additional things too, and I want to share them with you.

Am I An Anti-Semite?

I have never considered myself an anti-Semite in the sense I always understood this phrase. To me, to be an anti-Semite is to harbor a hatred for Jews as a people, or Judaism as a religion, and since I do not harbor such a hatred, nor do I believe that I advocate any political or social views that would amount to oppression of Jews, I had no reason to think of myself as an anti-Semite.

Defenders of Israel, whether they are Jews themselves, Christian evangelicals, neoconservative hawks, or whatever else, often have a different view. To voice some criticism of Israel, or for America’s unflinching, unreserved support for this state, is often equated with anti-Semitism.

Ron Paul, for instance, is often denigrated as an anti-Semite  because he proposes cutting foreign aid to all countries, and Israel happens to be a recipient – one of many, and never actually singled out by the congressman – of American tax dollars. It wasn’t Ron Paul that made Israel the issue, but rather the pro-Israeli bloc in the government-media complex.

Why I Want Iran To Go Nuclear

Since we still live in a nominally free country for the moment, and the 1st amendment still exists, albeit as a fading relic of a bygone era, I am going to use my right to free speech to express why I believe the sovereign nation of Iran should possess a nuclear weapon. Rights are like muscles, people: use them or lose them.

1. Nuclear weapons keep the peace

Nuclear weapons may be the best thing that has happened to the world since the Magna Charta. The presence of massive stockpiles of nuclear weapons in any two nations all but guarantees that they will not engage in a protracted conventional war and all of its attendant horrors. Since the end of World War II, I am fairly certain that no two nations with nuclear stockpiles have gone to war, and it is arguable that a third world war (and possibly a fourth or a fifth) was prevented by their presence. Unlike democratic peace theory, which is demonstrably false and theoretically absurd, nuclear peace theory is based on the simple premise that no conflict is worth escalating when the threat of total or near-total annihilation is a real possibility. Nations will either settle their differences, or fight proxy wars (Korea, Vietnam, etc.). Proxy wars will end when all nations are nuclear armed.

Think I am insane? Nuclear peace theory was developed and championed by one of the most respected political theorists in the field of International Relations, Dr. Kenneth Waltz. You really don’t need a PhD to figure it out, though. It is blind idealism that prevents many on the pacifist left from seeing this, and crass opportunism (see #2 below) that drives many on the right to ignore it. A nuclear Iran may well prevent another war that America cannot afford in terms of blood, treasure, and prestige.

The Audacity of Iowa

The Iowa caucuses are bearing down upon America in her winter of discontent. Mainstream Republicans appear to be largely disappointed with the choices laid out before them, but nothing has the political class’ panties in a bunch like the prospect of a series of early Ron Paul victories in the primary season.

The commentary I have seen recently has been truly astounding, though not really surprising. Ron Paul supporters have trudged through years of indifference, skepticism and mockery about their candidate. Now that respectable sources give him a heavy chance of winning Iowa, the narrative has begun to change a bit, from he can’t win to he must not win. Of course we fully expect that the old canards will be amplified and retooled for maximum effect: Ron Paul is unelectable, Ron Paul’s foreign policy is – in spite of its concurrence with what the founding fathers said about the topic – unpatriotic and un-American, Ron Paul wrote racist newsletters, and so on.

Obligatory Tebow Commentary

I’ve been hearing a lot about Tim Tebow recently. I tried not to care, but the controversy surrounding this young man was too inflamed and passionate to simply ignore. So here’s my two cents.

I remember when the Tebow pro-life ad was the hot topic of discussion a few years ago. I thought it was a great idea at the time, and I still do: abortion is pure evil, unjustifiable evil, and should be denounced and exposed as often as our resources permit. While the left wins battle after battle in the culture war, this is one front on which they have been successfully opposed and worn-down. No one wants to defend abortion anymore. There is almost no passion left in the pro-baby murdering camp. The killing continues of course, but we may well see the demise of federally-protected abortion “rights” in our time.

Now Tebow is gathering attention because he prays in public. During games. As an apparent “thank you” to the Almighty for a successful pass or something along those lines – to be honest, I don’t really know, because I don’t watch sports.

Informed Common Sense Speaks

It’s just a joke right? Right. Fine. I’m not having a seizure over it. At this point when I see it, I just sigh and briefly fantasize what the world would be like if people weren’t this way.

What am I talking about? Well, I’m talking about College Humor’s “Facebook History of the World.” Upfront I will say that this is really a funny concept. The problem is that it is put together by pretentious young liberals who think they understand religion and human history.

Thus I was not really surprised to see appalling historical ignorance, moral idiocy, and a character masquerading as “common sense” that really ought to be named “arrogant projection of modern liberal sensibilities onto all of human history.” If you’ve read this, you may know what part I am referring to by now. So here is my re-write.

OWS:WWJD? NADA.

A couple of days ago I came across an article titled “Would Jesus Join the Occupy Protests?” The author, a Rev. Howard Bess, answers unequivocally “yes.” In fact, he engages in a bit of liberation theology-style revisionism, completely ripping away any spiritual significance of Christ’s message and remaking Him into a 1st century Che Guevara whose true identity has been suppressed by the eeeeeeevil Church for around 2000 years.

Almost everything Bess claims is either false or ridiculous. It is also futile, given that these sorts of messages have just never really gone over well with revolutionary left in the Western world – Latin America may be a different story, I can grant. In the end, Bess will either have to admit he was wrong or apostatize (if there is anything left of his faith, and this is doubtful); the left wants no true believers in Christ, only in the power of the  violent mob, the vanguard party, and eventually the supreme leader.