The Antiwar Right's Bent View of the World

FrontPageMagazine.com ^ | 12/16/04 | Lawrence Auster

[Tolik]

Interesting article PING!

This ping list is not author-specific for articles I'd like to share. Some for perfect moral clarity, some for provocative thoughts; or simply interesting articles I'd hate to miss myself. (I don't have to agree with the author 100% to feel the need to share an article.) I will try not to abuse the ping list and not to annoy you too much, but on some days there is more of good stuff that is worthy attention. I keep separate PING lists for my favorite authors Victor Davis Hanson, Lee Harris, David Warren, Orson Scott Card. You are welcome in or out, just freepmail me (and note which PING list you are talking about).

[ijcr]

While I value your opinion....for your own sake ensure that no one in your family gives you a labelling machine for Christmas.

Consider your health and time lost as you huddle under a lamp at night muttering to yourself and crank out such classics as; "paleo-libertarian,anarcho-capitalist,anti-federalist,"conservatives."perhaps even Arabophobic"

[Red Phillips]

Henry and Mason were wrong? So the Constitution is doing a really great job of controlling the size of the Federal Government, I guess. Just so we can establish a baseline for this argument, what percentage of the current federal government is constitutional? Is Social Security constitutional? Is Medicare? Is the Dept of Education?

The anti-federalist were precisely correct when they said the new government would come to view the Constitution as only a list of things it could not do, not as a very small and definite list of the few things it was allowed to do. Arch Federalist Hamilton said oh no it won't. Well, in the words of Dr. Phil, Mr. Hamilton how is that working for you?

[RaceBannon]

Great article!

[Red Phillips]

While labels are important and represent real differences, I am less interested in sorting people by labels, and more interested in sorting by policy and ideology. Sorting along divisions of degree, not kind, if you will. In my simplistic labeling system there are just real conservatives and fake conservatives. I generally make like cause with the real and oppose the fake. Your little jab was admittedly clever, but I'm not sure how it furthered this interesting debate.

[RaceBannon]

""He then turns around and does the exact same thing. The antiwar right is infected with "hate" and surely there is some underlying psychological motivation. Well, while I despise this type of argument, I will join Mr Auster in his hypocrisy and then promise to never do it again""

I think he is right, though.

Here is one way I put it:

On a few website bulletin boards, I have used the term PEACE NAZI to describe the peace movement in general, and one person asked me for an explanation as to what the term means and why I say it. Here is my answer:

It is intentionally derogatory, and I use it because I believe it has to be said.

It has to do with the foundation of the PEACE movement in the US and abroad and their Communist foundation, and how the majority of the signs held and slogans chanted are not about peace or genuine concern for the people of two warring countries, it is about the anti-American attitudes and the violence-inducing signs and slogans calling for violence against American Troops and President Bush.

Carrying signs calling on troops to kill their officers, to bomb Texas, for Bush to choke on a pretzel and die, for troops to shoot their officers, signs that call for communist revolution, starting fights with people who disagree with you while carrying a peace sign, trying to steal my money in Boston while carrying a peace sign and then telling me because you were shamed into giving back the money that means you are ok after all...

Things like that.

I will NOT stop using it. It is intended to make the peace protestor think.

After all the horrors we found in Iraq, you should all be thankful we went in and invaded to remove that madman. Yet, the mantra has changed, it is now against occupation! Still, not one PEACE NAZI has apologized and admitted we were right. All they do is complain that a people that were under slavery for 30 years have gone looting, and who do they blame? Why the US!! We did nothing to stop it! Maybe because we stayed out of the crowd because the PEACE NAZIS would have complained we didn’t let them vent their anger??

(As a side note, people who are now called PEACE NAZIS didn’t call on the LAPD or Federal Troops to stop the LA riots after the Rodney King riots, did they? They told us all to step back and let them vent their anger, yet all of a sudden, we are supposed to go in and use force to stop rioters in Iraq?)

And to top it off, we are flushing out the terrorists in places like Fallujah, the places where the Murderous Mullahs all take refuge, and the PEACE NAZIS have not ONCE held a rally to decry the beheadings of Americans or Iraqi CARE workers! Not one PEACE NAZI rally held to call for justice for the Killers of Daniel Pearl or any foreigner killed in Iraq!

We never intended to occupy a country like SYRIA has the last 20 years, and where are the PEACE NAZIS and their signs calling on SYRIA to leave Lebanon? They are non existent. The Syrians killed tens of thousands, chasing little children into bedrooms and shooting them point blank.

Did you know there was a Christian Community in Beirut before 1985? Now, they are almost either all killed or fled from the Syrian backed Junta, and not a peep from the PEACE NAZIS, only against American forces sent to Beirut to keep peace. Why aren’t the PEACE NAZIS arguing for the return of the Christian Community back to Beirut where they lived for 2 Millennium?

Where were the PEACE NAZIS when Israel was blockaded in 1967? Where were the PEACE NAZIS when Israel was attacked on her Holy Day of Yom Kippur in 1973? Where were the PEACE NAZIS when the PLO was shelling Katyusha rockets into Israel in 1982? Oh, Yeah, I remember, they were telling Israel to stop defending themselves!

In fact, there is not a single country that we ever went to war with that we stayed as the government power for more than 10 years! We always returned it to the people.

And that brings up another point: PEACE NAZIS are NOT against war, they are against wars that the US is engaged in to overthrow pro-Communist or PRO-radical Islamic regimes or PRO-Maoist/PRO-Stalinist regimes.

My point here, is simple: These COMMIES are not for peace. If they were, they would have been screaming about Clinton killing innocents to keep his sexual scandals off the tv,

they would have been screaming for the Palestinian Liberation Organization to stop killing Jews,

they would have been screaming for Hamas and Islamic Jihad to stop killing Jews,

they would have been screaming for the Hutus and Tutsis to make peace,

they would have been screaming for that madman Saddam to stop killing Kurds or Iranians,

they would have been screaming for the Turks to stop killing Kurds or Greeks,

they would have been screaming for the Chinese to stop killing Vietnamese in 1982,

they would have been screaming for the Angolan Army to stop killing with the help of the Cuban Army in the 1980's,

they would have been screaming for the Muslims to stop killing Christians in Indonesia

They would have been screaming for the Sudanese to stop the torture and slave trade which continues today

They would have been screaming when the Syrians invaded Lebanon in 1985

They would have been screaming when Pol Pot started a genocide in 1975,

They would be screaming now about Mugabe killing all the white farmers in Africa in Zimbabwe

They would have been screaming at the murders caused by the African National Congress and their necklacing of prisoners and at Winnie Mandela who was convicted of murder, yet the communists are silent

They would have been screaming about Tiananmen Square, but they are silent.

They would have been screaming about the repression in Cuba and why so many people have chosen to flee in rickety little boats, but instead they lionize that dictator, Castro

They would have been screaming about the invasion of South Vietnam in 1975 where the north started a genocide campaign in direct violation of the Paris Peace Accords of 1973 and caused over 2 million Vietnamese to flee in little boats that got picked up by ships like mine in 1981

They would be screaming at the Palestinians for their suicide bombings that intentionally target innocent school age children,

They would be screaming at the Palestinians for their suicide bombings that intentionally target innocent people on buses, or pizza parlors, or weddings, or cruise ships, or Olympic hotels,

Except, the only time they scream is when the US is at war against a tyrant who is support by Russia.

In much of the world, the antics and policies of these PEACE NAZIS would result in jail – or worse. Cuba, China and many socialist countries routinely eliminate protests – and protesters – against the government and its leaders. It seems ironic that the ultimate goal of these protesters is to transform America into the kind of government that tolerates no dissent.


And since NAZI is one of the most vile insults you can give someone in our last two generations, I call them PEACE NAZIS, for they are not for peace, they are for war, they are for the overthrow of my country and into communism and anarchy, and they are a violent bunch who base their foundation on lies and the telling of lies and the repeating of lies.

[Red Phillips]

I appreciate the passion of your post, but I think you are profoundly misunderstanding what I and the rest of the antiwar RIGHT is saying. The antiwar left is made up of many of the unsavory elements you mention. Pacifist, America haters, communist sympathizers, and to them big capitalistic America is always the bad guy. The antiwar right, is simply non intervention. Not pro commie by any means and by and large not pacifistic. What you might call isolationist, a term I embrace but some think is a term of derision. Your list of atrocities is a good one but it illustrates the point. The world is too big, man's nature is too fallen, there are too many bad things happening in the world for us to hope to play global policeman. Opposing American intervention is not the same as endorsing an atrocity. But it is a very conservative instinct to recognize the limits of government to remake fallen man. Only Christ can remake fallen man. Of all those atrocities you mentioned, which ones would you intervene in? With what troops? With what money?

[RaceBannon]

I would have intervened in almost everyone, with either an embargo or troops of our own or the support of troops indigenous to fight the bad guys.

The PEACE NAZIS dont believe in any of that. Unless it is a war against American Interests.

[AFPhys]

PEACE NAZIS

I like it - I LOVE YOUR Statement of what they are, and I will be copying it for distribution to some of my unfriends here.

Red: you're wrong about being isolationist and non-interventionist. We have no moral choice but to be the best global policeman possible. That clearly does not mean we can or must intervene in each and every case of injustice, but that we must constantly evaluate where and when, much as a good parent chooses when and how to intervene in the lives of their children for their own benefit, but often chooses to let them go their own way for one reason or another.

In the case of Saddumb Hussein, OBL and Afghanistan, we waited far too long for the rest of the world to respond, as we have also in the case of Iran, and Syrian support of terrorism, and I'm quite tempted to say we've waited too long in the case of Saudi Arabia, but I don't know enough about the "behind the scenes" activity there to be certain. Being isolationist and non-interventionist and allowing threats to overcome our allies, and eventually ourselves, is not an effective option for a world superpower, and it is not moral to stand by and do nothing. If anything, I would state that we have errored most grieveously by being as non-interventionist as we have been to our detriment and to the world's, and would contend that we ought to have intervened in the majority of the cases RaceB mentioned in his post.

[NHResident]

I think Murray Rothbard was one conflicted dude. I never finished his biography - I couldn't get past teh statement by one of his 'true believers' that Rothbard was only 'consistent in his inconsistency' i.e. he challenged his followers with a firm philosophy - then as his followers began to understand his rational and began to embrace it, Rothbard would 'move beyond' that understanding and embrace the exact opposite! It sounded to me like someone who had a lot of fun playing 'mind-games' on people who were intellectually slower than him. I wasn't interested.

[Iris7]

In the past I was very much in your philosophical camp. Loved Patrick Henry even as a young boy, read Chronicles religiously and contributed money to them as I could. I know Chis Check pretty well, and have talked to Tom Flemming for some hours. Enjoyed Lew Rockwell.

The problem is that humans do not behave that way. Those that find Liberty worth the sacrifice are a minority. People will not defend the Constitution, as Alexander Hamilton predicted.

Any more I see the whole enterprise of the Republic as another well fitted piece in the mosaic of human events, a first half of the 18th Century Whiggishness. Been doomed since "judicial review" or even earlier with Charles River Bridge and the end of the "abridgment of contracts" clause.

[Red Phillips]

Well at least you guys are honest. Admitting you want to be global policemen and intervene almost everywhere. That is fine, but it is not conservative. It is certainly not small government conservative. It is Wilsonian liberalism. That kind of policy would require a huge military with huge military budgets and the loss of many lives. It would also make it nearly impossible for Americans to step outside our country without being a target. The rest of the world doesn't like us because they see us as trying to throw our weight around. It we were in all the places you want, then we would be even more despised. I don't doubt your motives, but the rest of the world would surely doubt ours. Don't you think all those countries you consider our "children" would balk at that characterizations and resent our acting as their "parent." It is not anti-American to think that that kind of attitude is patronizing and dangerous. Would you be OK with it if Canada decided it was our "parent" and that it was in our best interest to adopt universal health care? And it was their "moral obligation" to impose that on us by force of arms. Of course you would be outraged and rightly so. And don't respond by saying yeah but America can do it and Canada can't. That would be saying that might makes right, and I'm sure that is not what you are saying.

[Lazamataz]

[At least you are] admitting you want to be global policemen and intervene almost everywhere.

Me too.

[Red Phillips]

Rothbard was always consistent with his own philosophy. Where he changed was with who he thought anarchist libertarians like himself should make allies. He initially started out believing his natural allies were on the "Old Right" right. When Buckley hijacked the right with his attempts to purge anyone who wasn't a die hard Cold Warrior, Rothbard decided his allies were in the antiwar left, who also didn't like drug laws, antiporn laws, etc. Toward the end of his life he had returned to his alliance with the isolationist right. He endorsed Buchanan in '92. Rothbard was a nonpracticing Jew. While he was never as antireligion as some left libertarians, toward the end of his life he started to recognize that religion and tradition was ultimately protective of liberty but of course he never endorsed any government measures to enforce them.

[Destro]

Bravo. For the record - for the Iraq war but hate how it was fought and feel nation changing is folly.

Not I wrote nation changing - nation building would involve building up what was there before such as a republican Germany and Japan before the Nazis and Jap Generals.

Nation changing involves importing and creating new institutions and ways of thinking into nations that have never known such things such as Iraq.

Example: Maybe Iraq would have been better off as a strong man centralized constitutional monarchy like they had before Saddam and not the system put into place now?

[AFPhys]

The mere fact that we ARE the ultrapower - the greatest and most unchallenged military and economic power the world has ever known - makes us a target whether you like it or not, and no matter what we do. Like it or not, the success of our Constitution and our way of life has brought us inevitably to this place, and we are the leaders of the world culturally, economically, and militarily. To deny our responsibility is as laughable as the pro athletes denial that they must properly act as role models for our youth. To change that, we would have to do as the French and Russians and Germans and Koffees want and surrender our sovereignty and lower our economic standards.

Surrender of our sovereignty would most decidedly not be in keeping with the standards the Constitution sketches out for us.

In fact, it is very Conservative to insist that our government be used to PROVIDE FOR THE NATIONAL DEFENSE - and in the Twentieth Century, when failure to maintain a standing army and use it in time arguably led to far more destructive wars and cost to this country due to YOUR type of shortsighted "conservative" isolationism added to the Peace Nazis efforts - and as well that gave rise to a far more destructive Cold War and Soviet influence than would have been the case had we more energetically opposed them. Similarly, it is shortsighted to recognize that PREEMPTIVE use of military power and economic power and other national assets is critical in the present world environment, and that it is necessary to PROVIDE FOR THE COMMMON DEFENSE, as the clear failure to act preemptively against Afghanistan and earlier, Iraq, cost us dearly.

I highly recommend that you look up President Bush's Jun.1.2002 Graduation Speech at West Point http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/06/20020601-3.html and the "National Security Strategy of the United States": http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nss.html for a more farsighted view of the global situation and how we must act in order to counter the threats to our National Defense.

[Destro]

PROVIDE FOR THE COMMMON DEFENSE, does not translate into provide for the common offense unless you adopt the left wing view of a living constitution that can change meaning along with the times and want to change meanings of words ala Orwell's 1984.

While not a paleo or a Libertarian, I can understand why the new conservativcs set the other side of the right off.

[AFPhys]

I strongly disagree - and it is not tampering with the original meaning of the Constitution - in the modern world we must not make the error of believing that we can defend ourselves solely by awaiting the enemy with muskets in Concord and Lexington; and though some would, most of the Founding Fathers would not make a case for that position.

The only way that our government can responsibly provide for the common defense is to keep enemies away from our shores.

[Destro]

and it is not tampering with the original meaning of the Constitution - in the modern world we must not make the error

Not so fast - in the modern world we must not make the mistake that the constitution has a different meaning or application in the modern world than what the constitution meant in the past.

[Destro]

The only way that our government can responsibly provide for the common defense is to keep enemies away from our shores.

I am sure the paleo answer to that is: "why station the military in Iraq and leave the Mexican border wide open?"