Derange We Can Believe In
(posted by Jim Henley)
I hardly count as a libertarian most days any more, but listening to the infantile drivel at the RNC tonight and watching speaker after speaker attempt to goose America’s hindbrain, I’m seized with two thoughts: 1) Hey, it might work! It’s worked before; 2) We hand out almost indescribable power as a result of this contest.
Isn’t that deeply, deeply frightening? Even if you are fundamentally conservative - especially if you are fundamentally conservative - don’t you recognize the atavism of the appeals being made, and doesn’t it frighten and disgust you? There is certainly no "Principle of Good Order" at work here, or prudent recognition of mortal limits, or even a grateful recognition of the authority of one’s betters. And if you’re a liberal, dedicated to human flowering and the role of government in fostering it, don’t you quail before the gibbering face of vox populism? This is the system by which one will do the greatest good for the greatest number? And more darkly, do these bastards deserve Health Care; good jobs at good wages; "a quality, affordable education"; The Presumption of Innocence? Shouldn’t any system that rewards and results in such proudly precognitive slavering be sanely restricted in its scope and sweep? Shouldn’t we, indeed, try to figure out how to do without it?
I’m serious here. If you stop to think that the people putting on this show are not crazy to try, it ought to oppress your every waking thought.
September 3rd, 2008 at 9:18 pm
Um, if the Republican party ever represented something that could be described as “conservative”, it stopped long ago. Fascism-lite is what you are seeing. While it disgusts you, obviously it has a good deal of appeal to a good many people.
September 3rd, 2008 at 9:36 pm
Well, yeah. Which is why I wrote what I wrote.
September 3rd, 2008 at 10:06 pm
Um, if the Republican party ever represented something that could be described as “conservative”, it stopped long ago. Fascism-lite is what you are seeing. While it disgusts you, obviously it has a good deal of appeal to a good many people.
You could perhaps more accurately describe the Bush and McCain as paleo-progressives. After all, the origins of the neocons were Trotskyists and Buckley came out of the CIA, which was created by progressives. Is there any issue on which Bush is to the right of, say, Woodrow Wilson? He actually seems very similar - religious fanatic, delusional ideas of using the military might of America to promote democracy, Sedition Act=Patriot Act, etc. Heck, you could make a good case that Bush is to the left of Kennedy (maybe not quite, but close).
Jim-
Have you ever considered that the many writers from history who argued that democracy is an awful form of government, that democracy leads to populist tyrants, war, and and/or socialism may have been right? That civil service states, monarchies and aristocratic republics are all far superior forms of government? That perhaps instead of worrying about the insanities of modern politics we should be focusing on how to restore a more sane system of government?
September 3rd, 2008 at 10:44 pm
I hardly count as a libertarian most days any more, but listening to the infantile drivel at the RNC tonight and watching speaker after speaker attempt to goose America’s hindbrain, I’m seized with two thoughts: 1) Hey, it might work! It’s worked before;
Jim,
There’s nothing remotely libertarian about the GOP’s pitch. Yes, there are elements of libertarianism that appeal to the baser instincts, but (1) the same is true of most ideologies, (2) there is more than one angle from which to approach the hindbrain, and the GOP pitch tonight didn’t go to the libertarian angle in any but the most superficial aspects, and (3) there’s more to libertarianism than just the hindbrain aspects. Once upon a time, there may also have been more to the GOP than just the hindbrain aspects, but that time is long gone.
September 3rd, 2008 at 11:44 pm
Thoreau: I suspect you might’ve misunderstood what Jim was getting at with that remark. Sounded to me like reference to how they’re trying to win the election, and how their tactic has worked in the past to hold power.
Although, I’m curious the meaning behind saying he’s hardly a libertarian any more. What has changed?
September 4th, 2008 at 12:42 am
That perhaps instead of worrying about the insanities of modern politics we should be focusing on how to restore a more sane system of government?
Ahh, the art of the impossible. They will all eventually devolve into the kind of insane grotesqueries we have seen in action for the the past 8 years and, yes, for centuries before.
Isn’t time to start eliminating these parasitic institutions.
September 4th, 2008 at 4:15 am
It’s been said before but bears reapeating, that anyone who desires high office should automatically be barred from obtaining it. Government should be selected by lottery from the total pool of eligible citizens.
September 4th, 2008 at 8:12 am
Devin: Sounds unpersuasive. Monarchies and aristocratic republics and civil-service states seem to have been great for large landowners and the descendents of warlords; not so much for everyone else.
September 4th, 2008 at 11:48 am
Jim: plus, of course, democracy means that you can’t declare an agressive war without the consent of the Senate.
Oh, right.
Have to update that for Civ 5…
September 4th, 2008 at 12:48 pm
[...] The Art of the Possible (via IOZ): I hardly count as a libertarian most days any more, but listening to the infantile [...]
September 4th, 2008 at 5:46 pm
“And if you’re a liberal, dedicated to human flowering and the role of government in fostering it, don’t you quail before the gibbering face of vox populism?”
Not at all. Let’s try that for a while. Hell, the country could hardly be worse off, so it’s worth a shot. Let’s let the people call the shots instead of the corporatocracy and see what happens!
September 7th, 2008 at 6:16 pm
Jim,
When I read Matt Welch’s article about the Republicans so called “free market” economic solutions, I was aghast at the idea of a government funded plan to repopulate the Midwest. McCain was talking about revitalizing rural America!
Sounds like an easy way for red state social conservatives to thrive and prosper. Count me out on paying the bill for that ( :
I will trade with the rest of the world before I take the sappy nationalist position that we’re all “one”.
Nope, we’re not. I could care less what happens to the religo-fascists in this country. They need to be treated like the criminals they are. Some disturbance in their lives will hopefully wake them up to the fact that they are criminals. It’s sad that we have to deal with nasty people with social boycott, but it’s much more preferable than letting them continue in their ways.
September 7th, 2008 at 6:17 pm
The article is here: http://www.reason.com/news/show/128597.html
September 7th, 2008 at 6:29 pm
Oh, just to clarify: I am not saying there aren’t any good people worth associating with in rural areas. I am just not that enthused by a collectivist aid plan that could drain funds from people whose judgment and cultural beliefs are more trustworthy. I guess I am implicitly relying on the idea that America’s more cosmopolitan areas are urbanized.
September 8th, 2008 at 2:14 pm
“Shouldn’t any system that rewards and results in such proudly precognitive slavering be sanely restricted in its scope and sweep?”
I think the fundamental error here is in assuming that the system/democracy/whatever leads to this. It’s not like people are inherently nobler or better under a monarchy or anarchy or whatever else. They’re just people.