I was sitting in Billy's Roadhouse eating wings and slugging down a Rolling Rock after work today, thinking about some of the things touched on in this interview.
Paglia and Sullivan talk about the polarization of politics again. The phrasing that came to me while I was eating was that it is a wholehearted embracing of demagoguery and propaganda as acceptable replacements for actual thought. This is of particular concern to me, who finds myself stuck in the middle of two very polarized former-allies turned bitter enemies: libertarians and conservatives.
I have long described myself as a libertarian leaning conservative. That is an intentionally ambiguous phrase. Am I a libertarian, leaning conservative, or a conservative who is libertarian leaning? My mere existence on Free Republic has been minimized due to an unbelievable polarization of these groups. There is no middle ground, I am on an island with very few other inhabitants.
If one loads up the latest posts page, one is innundated with posts that can best be described as propaganda. We are living in a Nazi State! George W. Bush has channeled George Orwell. Civil liberties are nearing extinction! And on the other side, a belief that we are wasting valuable resources fighting pot is met with allegations of being a dopehead, and arguing that we might want to slow down and make sure that we are going after only the guilty and not rushing to judgement becomes aiding and abetting the terrorists.
I am particularly disturbed by the side that my libertarian sensibilities would normally align itself with. The sheer audacity of the claims and rhetoric is breathtaking, and is particularly self-defeating in my eyes. Libertarianism is supposed to appeal to a person's reason and rationality, and when we see self-described libertarians engaging in propaganda that would make Goebbels proud all it does is discredit libertarian thought; truly if it was a mindset based in reason and able to withstand critical thought then it would not rely on cheap lies and emotional appeals. People notice this, it strikes them when they read that crap how inherently wrong it is, and it drives people away.
I invite all libertarian leaning people and conservatives to check out the position statement of the RLC posted in that forum. Surely, that is what we should be leading with. It isn't the be all and end all (to truly get conservative leaning folks like me on board 100% it should recognize the right to life, for example) but it sure is the way to appeal to the minds of people in a way that is consistent and not going to make them feel as if someone is trying to manipulate and lie to them, the way that half the crap that gets posted (and cheered!) nowadays does.
Once upon a time, the Republicans nominated a libertarian leaning conservative who was dealt a really bad hand (a nation recovering from the assassination of a president, who just happened to be from the opposing party). This man was wise and told us extremism in defense of liberty is no vice, moderation in the pursuit of justice no virtue. As with other quotations over time, the meaning of this has been twisted. Extremism in the pursuit of political gain is no virtue. Moderation in defense of liberty and truth and integrity is no vice. As he once also famously said, "let's grow up, conservatives", and that includes my libertarian leaning friends.
When we find ourselves cheering James Trafficant merely because every so often he gave a one minute speech we agreed with while he took bribes and kickbacks, we sell out our principles and our integrity. When we castigate George Bush because he isn't Barry Goldwater or Robert A. Taft but rather a politician, we turn our noses up on the system our founding fathers put together; they made the office of the President a political position. We may want to yearn for a day where politics comes into play less often, but we make that day retreat further off when we embrace the blatent political tools of demagoguery and propaganda. Let's grow up.
As with other quotations over time, the meaning of this has been twisted. Extremism in the pursuit of political gain is no virtue. Moderation in defense of liberty and truth and integrity is no vice.I left out a sentence on this thought.
As with other quotations over time, the meaning of this has been twisted. Now moderation of any sort seems to be considered a vice, and extremism regardless of the goal considered a sign of nobleness. This isn't the case. Extremism in the pursuit of political gain is no virtue. Moderation in defense of liberty and truth and integrity is no vice.</BLOCKQUOTE
Thanks for this great commentary.
I felt a pang of recognition as a conservative-side
libertarian. Until I read you profile page.
I'll be pushing off for the next island, now.
Cheers.
I know what you mean. The problem is, if you're a sorta-Libertarian then there's a danger of being perceived as a "moderate" and Rush Limbaugh, quite rightly, bashes them.
I think all drugs should be legal, etc. etc.....I agree with many Libertarian things, I think people would be well advised to think carefully about most everything (except some of the foreign policy stuff) the Cato Institute says.
But I'd never DREAM of throwing away my vote by actually voting Libertarian. And there really is a serious "raving loon" problem with the Libertarians, too, that needs to be addressed. And I have huge problems with Libertarian isolationist foreign policy.
I sorta consider myself a "PJ O'Rourke" Republican. He has a lot of Libertarian leanings himself, but really isn't one.
Actually, if you look around, you'd probably discover you are in the majority.
Observe that the libertarian-conservative flame wars usually involve only a few, though prolifically verbose, participants. Those threads are best ignored -- full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.