the movement for liberty and peace is on the move, and the opposition is gathering … --- so true know the enemy
"In the first place we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the man's becoming in very fact an American, and nothing but an American...There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn't an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag, and this excludes the red flag, which symbolizes all wars against liberty and civilization, just as much as it excludes any foreign flag of a nation to which we are hostile...We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language...and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people." Theodore Roosevelt On Mar 3, 10:48 am, "M. Johnson" <[email protected]> wrote: > The War Party: A Paper TigerWhat we're up against: a conditioned reflex, a > couple of catch-phrases, and Fox NewsbyJustin Raimondo, March 03, 2010 > The reaction to Ron Paul’srunaway victoryin the CPAC presidential poll > continues to roll in, and I wouldn’t dwell on it as much asI haveexcept for > its significance as indicative of a sea-change on the right and in the > country generally. And also, for another reason: because I can’t help but > wonder at the paucity of intellectual firepower among Paul’s critics. > From thesnide Washington-insiderismof the "cosmotarians" in the ostensibly > libertarian movement, to thefact-free hystericsof professional race-baiter > Earl Ofari Hutchinson, and theVyshinsky-like denunciationsby Michael > "Mushroom Cloud" Gerson, the Bush II speechwriter andWashington > Postcolumnist, one gets a sense that there is no real opposition toPaul’s > ideology– only a huge intellectual vacuum lit up by lightning flashes of > malice. While the above-mentioned anti-Paulistas come at their target from a > variety of ideological positions, what they all have in common is a refusal > to engage his actual ideas, and instead focus on some irrelevant detail or > incident in order to discredit the man and the movement he spawned. > The "cosmotarians," i.e.ReasonmagazineeditorMatt Welch, his former > employeeDave Weigel, and the so-called Orange Line Mafia, came closest with > their attacks on Paul’s strategy. The only problem for them is that their > thesis – that the Paulian strategy of anticipating and appealing to a > burgeoning anti-government protest movement which they fairly described as > "right-wing populist" would not only fail miserably but bring libertarianism > into fatal disrepute – proved to be absolutely and laughably wrong. Paul > isinarguablythe single most successful popularizer of libertarian ideas, and > today he stands at the head of a movement that extends far beyond the > traditional libertarian periphery. The frantic attacks against Paul that are > still being launched in the online pages ofReasonmagazine areboomeranging, > with a record number of canceled subscriptions and renewals abjured. An > effort that aimed to discredit Paul is, instead, bringing discredit on the > perpetrators – and isn’t it refreshing to see that there’ssomejustice in this > world? > Yet the cosmotarians didn’t engage Paul’s ideas, either, but instead tried to > deflect them by claiming that his strategy was politically and culturally > incorrect, and that it was all an evil plot hatched byMurray RothbardandLew > Rockwellto submerge thecool hip libertarianmovement into the Neanderthal > dregs of the Reactionary Right, where blazers rather than black leather > jackets are the uniform of choice. > This sub-political "critique" of Paul and his movement doesn’t really qualify > as argument so much as it resembles a form of ideological voguing, or > striking a pose. The weird insubstantiality of the whole business was given > voice by Paul critic Brink Lindsay, of the Cato Institute, who toldThe > NationPaul isn’t "the kind of person that’s tapping into those elements of > American public opinion that might lead towards a sustainable move in the > libertarian direction." He’s notour"kind of person," the cosmotarians caviled > – but so what? Nobody cared, and Paul went on to create a libertarianmass > movementagainstcrony capitalismandwar. > Gerson’s "critique" is equally contentless: like much of what passes for > polemics on the right, his column consists mostly of a long list of epithets. > For a former presidential speechwriter, he sure is inarticulate, although > perhaps the presidential tendency to make pronouncements, rather than > arguments – a tendencygreatly exacerbatedduring the Bush years – inevitably > crippled his prose style as a columnist. Gerson, once a senior policy advisor > at the Heritage Foundation, is the founder of "compassionate conservatism," a > doctrine fuzzy in its outlines butclearon its foreign policy prescription of > non-compassionate aggression in the Middle East and around the world: > anything less is "isolationist." > The Gersonite "critique" of the Paul movement is echoed ina recent pieceby > one Thomas Qualtere, in theDaily Caller, Tucker Carlson’s much-touted > conservative knockoff of theHuffington Post. As an exercise in vapidity, > Qualtere’s empty-headed prose certainly fits theCaller’s red-state > sub-literate demographic, starting with the title: "Hawks We Are, And Hawks > We Must Remain." Oh really – and why is that? Qualtere writes:"With CPAC 2010 > now fully behind us, conservatism’s rising generation has some choosing to > do. Specifically, on the matter of war and national security, will we be the > hawks that we were born to be? Now is the time to make a lasting decision, > and we better get it right.""The hawks we werebornto be?" It’s hard to know > what Qualtere is getting at here – he seems to equate ideas with conditioned > reflexes – but, as you’ll see, that’s not too unusual in the case of this > author, who is described as "Research Assistant to the President of the > Heritage Foundation." His education, we are told, consists of degrees in > "Government and Acting" – the perfect dual major for one who has, according > to his bio, "spent several years as a GOP operative throughout upstate New > York’s Capital Region." > "A few years ago it was thought that social issues would be the barrier that > partitioned us into separate camps," avers Qualtere. Yes, the anti-gay > speaker at the conferencewas booed, and so the aging GOP leadership of > religious nuts and neocons will have to reconsider that particular bigotry, > or else come up with a new angle.. "Instead," continues Qualtere, "it seems > to be our dramatically conflicting views over U.S. foreign policy that have > drawn a thick, undeniable line in the sand." The clichés come in a veritable > torrent: Paul’s "isolationism" is the "10,000 pound elephant in the room, and > his victory was a "brief moment of glory." The pundits pointed to the youth > as the "culprit," he whines, yet Qualtere undermines his own point by > admitting that "only half" of the voters were under 25. True, a "mere 24 > percent of CPAC attendees" actually voted, but he fails to mention that this > degree of participation is unprecedented. > Oh, but don’t worry, some good can come out of Paul’s victory yet, because, > says Qualtere, it "gives young conservatives everywhere a reason (or perhaps > an excuse) to ask ourselves, on the topic of foreign policy, the > unnecessarily uncomfortable question of where we want to stand and who we > want (and don’t want) to stand with us." > So what is the answer to this question that our young author feels > uncomfortable about asking, albeit unnecessarily so?"Our answers should lay > in our generational identity. > "We are the 9/11 generation. > "We were born sometime in the ’80sa period we know better through old films > and theme parties than from actual memory, yet we’re still aware that a > certain actor-turned-president is responsible for making the decade > everything that the ’70s were not: harmonious, optimistic, and thriving."Oh, > but they had better parties during the ’70s, let me assure you, I don’t care > how many theme parties you’ve been to. Trust me on that. The eighties > "harmonious, optimistic, and thriving"? Well, I won’t quibble over details, > but the borderline charm of this level of blissful ignorance is really > stretched to the breaking point by the following:"We grew up through the > roaring ’90sa time of peace and prosperity that neither our parents nor > grandparents ever knew. Occurring between the end of the Cold War and the > arrival of Y2K, it was truly a holiday from history and we enjoyed every > fruit it had to offer. The music was great, the movies were fun, the new > cellular telephones were neat and the World Wide Web was even cooler. As much > as we remember how easy that era was for us, we also remember how and why it > ended."Yeah, it ended with the election ofGeorge W. Bush. During the alleged > golden age of the nineties a man named William Jefferson Clinton was > president –remember him? Another one of those bothersome details that > Qualtere fails to mention. The music, the movies, the "holiday from history," > all of it was great – so why isn’t he a Democrat of the Clintonian variety? > Well, you see, it all has to do with being "the 9/11 generation" – which > apparently means being the mutant offspring of a mentally deforming event, as > Qualtere’s deathless prose makes all too clear:"It’s been almost a decade > since 9/11. Many of us felt our first spark of political passion in the > aftermath of the attacks because we saw something (or many things) that we > deeply, personally admired in George W. Bush. Whether it was his character, > his leadership, or that he was the guy who was going to send our warriors to > rain down justice on our new enemies, we lined up behind him. He was not only > our president, he was our avenger. We’d heard endless tales of the greatness > that was Ronald Reagan, but we never actually knew him. Bush was > different."Sothisis what the anti-Paul forces in the ostensibly conservative > "mainstream" have to offer: the cult of Bush! As my old friendMurray > Rothbardused to say: "Are we to be sparednothing?!" > For most of his presidency aclueless front manforDick Cheneyandthe neocons, > George W. Bush expanded thesize,scope, andreachof the US governmental power > almost as much as he expandedthe deficit, and at a rate that is and wassimply > astounding. > Qualtere should take a good look at the other CPAC poll results if he wants > to discover why the cult of Bush isn’t a good marketing tool for his brand of > hooey. Asked "which one of the following comes closest to your core beliefs > and ideology?" 80 percentchose"to promote individual freedom by reducing the > size and scope of government and its intrusion into the lives of citizens." > These are very unlikely recruits to the Bush cult. It looks to me like "the > 9/11 generation" isfar from unanimousin its hero worship of Bush II and > thepolicieshepromulgated. Indeed, among conservatives of Qualtere’s > generation, the Bushian doctrine of permanent war and big government has few > adherents, and perhaps the great majority of these neo-Bushians are on the > payroll of the Heritage Foundation and allied neocon institutions huddled in > the Washington Beltway. > The CPAC poll augurs a new grassroots mood on the American right, one that > will provoke more hostility than thesupposedly subversive"antigovernment" > message of the so-called tea-partiers. The regnant elites, "progressives" as > well asneoconservatives, deride it as "isolationist," and invariably link it > to other politically incorrect disorders, i.e. ideas that the Washington-New > York axis of arrogance considers outside the pale. Yet the proposition that > we should quit meddling in the affairs of other nations is increasingly > popular, asa recent Pew pollshowed: the poll also showed that, on this > question, the elites are far removed from the rest of us in their undying > attachment to a foreign policy of global intervention. Of the "key > opinion-makers" asked, not a single one took the "less meddling" position. > Thus the near-universal panic when Paul won at CPAC. And they are right to be > panicked. That’s becausethe Old Rightis back: a mass movement against Power > and all its works, especially war. The conservatism ofRobert A. Taft, > Rep.George H. Bender, andthe America First Committee– the biggest antiwar > movement in our history – is rising, and not all the second-rate smear > artists, third-rate hucksters, and fourth-rate junior neocons in Washington > can stop it. That’s because they have nothing to say, no ideas to debate, and > no coherent alternative to Paul’ssystematiccritiqueof the Welfare-Warfare > State. > Certainly Qualtere’s polemic against Paul is remarkably, even frighteningly > empty. In examining it, line by line, we find not a single real argument: > only histrionics, heroic calls to action, the valorization of the boring and > inarticulate Bush, and this:"Can those who openly profess that Iran should be > able to possess nuclear weapons really stand for very long on the same ship > as those who squarely reject such as asinine notion? Of course not."The > question, though, isnotwhether Iranshouldbe able to possess nuclear weapons, > but how Qualtere and his neoconservative confreres propose to stop them from > possessing thecapacityto produce such weapons. After all, even if Iran is > telling the truth about its intentions – that they are only interested in > thepeaceful pursuitof nuclear power – Tehran could easily switch gears, given > a certain level of technical competence, and succeed in producing a weapon. > Given their continued technicalprogress, war – by Qualtere’s lights – is > inevitable. After all, as he puts it, wemustwin the "war on terrorism" "no > matter what." > The emphasis is Qualtere’s.No matter what–financial insolvency, > thedegradation of our Constitution, thegrowth of governmentbeyond any > conservative’s worst nightmare. None of that matters, because all > "conservatives" of this sort care about is war, war, and more war. Not that > they intend to fight this "Good War" themselves. Oh no, certainly not:"Of > course, scores of young conservative are currently doing much more than > debating America’s foreign policy behind the comfort of our borders; they’re > fighting the wars of which we speak as Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, and > Marines. But for those of us who’ve chosen a vocation on the home front, our > support for them and their mission must be unambiguous and unwavering. It is > time for conservatism’s 9/11 generation to fully embrace and defend the role > that history has bestowed upon us and wear our hawk feathers more proudly > than ever."Of course, some of the "9/11 generation" will wind up "embracing" > their assigned "role" in history more fully than others, as thecasualty > figuresfor Obama’s wars in Afghanistan and Pakistan startadding up. Not > "those who have chosen a vocation on the home front," however – although, > don’t worry,Qualtereis going to be out there cheerleading,just like his hero > Bush, the whole time. > If a man is to be judged by his enemies, then Ron Paul is nothing short of a > saint. What a sad collection of vacuous losers! Nothing they say or write > remotely resembles an argument, never mind a convincing one. As Gertrude > Stein said of her home town: "There is no there there." > If this is the best the War Party and its allies can come up with, then we > say without exaggeration that they’re just a bunch of paper tigers – and has > anybody got a match? > In fighting a vast emptiness, however, we may find we are facing the most > formidable enemy of all. How do you fight against an intellectual vacuum? A > good question, and one that I’m afraid will have to wait for another day. In > the meantime, however, take heart in such victories as come our way – and > prepare for battle. Because the movement for liberty and peace is on the > move, and the opposition is gathering > …http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2010/03/02/the-war-party-a-paper-tiger/ -- Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
