Why are Republicans so bad? There are interesting class-based reasons, but the core problem is philosophical. Their meta-understanding of politics bypassed the liberal revolution of the 18th century and embraced the anti-liberal elements of the Enlightenment. Up with Hobbes, down with Locke: that is their implied creed. Liberty is fine but order, ORDER, is much more important, and order comes from the state. They can’t even fathom the truth that liberty is the mother, not the daughter, of order. That thought is too complex for the Manichean mind. FULL ARTICLE
Source link: http://blog.mises.org/6305/the-republicans-and-their-doomed-ideology/
The Republicans and their Doomed Ideology
Previous post: A delicious monopoly
Next post: The Greens Reduce Alcohol Consumption, Too?
{ 24 comments }
I enjoyed reading your posts on the Republican and Democrat ideologies. I would be very interested to read a piece which supports your own ideology.
Lew: “It is a curiosity that these same people tend to herald the Declaration of Independence. This was a revolutionary document that postulated that government was the source of disorder, and imagined that society could be forged in absence of the state. The replacement government under the Articles of Confederation was a government in name only, and like the anarchy that Republicans fear more than anything else.”
I think Lew is reading his modern anarchist sentiments into the minds of the Founders. My reading of history shows that the Founders, even Jefferson, feared lawlessness as much as they feared tyranny. That’s why they all hated democracy and insisted on a republic.
It’s funny how everyone wants to claim that the Founders held to their ideology. Having the approval of the Founders seems to lend credibility to modern ideas.
What I find amazing is how Bush is basically putting forth a presidency similar to JFK (if not slightly more leftward) and he is a fascist, all the while the Lib/Dems still swoon over the Camelot mystique.
With Bush I and II, I’ve accepted the fact that the Republicans have given up any libertarian leanings. Both parties have a few “freedom” issues which parellel with libertarianism, but that seems to be only to make concessions on a few hot-button issues. By and large both parties are statist, and tossing aside “leftists” and “fascists”, statism is statism and both parties are knee-deep in the promises making/transfer industry. There are few well coordinated special interests which supply the vast numbers of people who vote. The Republicans know this, and pander as well. Neither party is looking out for individuals.
Suffice it to say, the republicans talk a good game, and the reality offends right-libertarians. I’m sure the Dems do the same to their target constituencies. The reality is that we, by and large, have a 1984ish system of “electable” Dems and Repubs who are much similar than different, at least in the eyes of a libertarian. Both talk about freedom and set about making more laws and more transfers. The concept of personal action leading to personal equity makes both parties go on tilt.
Eric,
To understand Lew’s principles on liberty and economic freedom, download his book here:
http://mises.org/etexts/sol.pdf
Mr. Rockwell says,
The only reason anyone I know votes Republican is that they perceive Democrats to be worse. Republicans do not need to hold to any principles. Rather, all they need to do is to be some small degree more acceptable than Democrats. Elections are comparative, not absolute, events.
If one were to understand the current class conflict, one would note that it is not between so-called conservative and liberal, or Democrat and Republican, or even rich and poor. The conflict is between the freer, governing class and the governed whose labor supports it and who must follow the rules set by the rulers. It is redundant to note that the ruling class is above the laws they write for others, but I might as well mention it, anyway.
Here’s something to think about. I believe that many (enough to have driven the ultimate outcome) Republicans think the very same thing with regard to the growth of government and other Democrat-like initiatives of the Bush Administration. As for the war, we’re still not getting it in here. It is NOT some sort of imperialistic nation-building, and there’s not valid comparison between Bush and Clinton use of the military. Islamic terrorism is the most clear and present danger to our national security since the cold war and we should be doing MORE to stomp out those who have INITIATED force and terror UPON US. Republicans (of whom I am describing here) would NOT support violation of constitutionally-guaranteed privacy rights. But if you’re talking overseas, that’s a whole new ballgame. That is NOT “domestic” spying. That’s national security.
George,
Any talk of dealing with Islamic terrorism is a sideshow UNTIL the U.S. adopts a neutral, non-interventionist foreign policy (no money or weapons change hands) and removes its military forces from the hundreds of countries they currently occupy.
It is childish and stupid to poke at hornets’ nests and then act as if we were just minding our own business when the hornets started stinging.
The U.S. government is NOT the world’s policeman or even a credible judge of which countries are “good” or “evil.” Its meddling is dangerous and expensive to all of us.
George,
Any talk of dealing with Islamic terrorism is a sideshow UNTIL the U.S. adopts a neutral, non-interventionist foreign policy (no money or weapons change hands) and removes its military forces from the hundreds of countries they currently occupy.
It is childish and stupid to poke at hornets’ nests and then act as if we were just minding our own business when the hornets started stinging.
The U.S. government is NOT the world’s policeman or even a credible judge of which countries are “good” or “evil.” Its meddling is dangerous and expensive to all of us.
I don’t like Democrats because they embrace the failure of Socialism. But I fear the Republicans because they unabashedly foster fascism. 9/11 was the burning of the Rheichstag for the Republicans, and they are making the most they can of it. Lots of people bristle at that analogy, but it is so true I cannot say anything else in good conscience.
I don’t see that in the Declaration of Independence:
It does clearly say that government can be a source of disorder (it does not claim it to be “the” source, however). The document says the solution to this is either to alter and improve the government or to abolish the current government and establish a new one.
Otherwise I thought this article was great.
Winston Churchill once stated that if forced to choose between fascism and communism, he would choose fascism.
I am afraid that we, as a nation, are being forced to choose between the soft fascism of the american Right or the cultural marxism and soft communism of the American Left. In such a scenario, I prefer fascism.
As libertarians, we are oft accused of sacrificing the good for the perfect; in this case, we are sacrificing the bad (Neoconservatism quasifascism) for the preferrable (minarchism), but are instead ending up with the awful: Left-Corporatism fused with cultural marxism.
First, everything is going according to plan, Our owners whipsaw the stupid voters between the two parties that are owned by the same people. Doesn’t matter which party is in temporary control. The program to eliminate the middle class will continue.
Second, the Declaration of Independance was the greatest advertising copy ever written. Lincoln’s War demonstrated that it had no long term effect and that the Constitution was either designed to produce rule by Supreme Court or Jefferson and Adams screwed up. God is generally “on the side with the most cannon.”
Thanks Francisco!
Erik von Kuehnelt Leddihn should have schooled you when you were younger, Lew. Fascism is a purely italian movement anyway… No such thing outside of it.
I agree with every point that Lew makes, but I disagree with the way he makes them. I really don’t see the value of putting down people and the party they favor in an almost Rush Limbaugh/Michael Moore fashion. What is wrong with assuming that the average Republican voter really does want smaller government, and saying to them something like “I agree completely with your idea that government should spend less money and leave people alone, and here is why the two major political parties have not been attaining this goal.” Why not assume that the average Democrat voter really does want a society where the poor or otherwise disadvantaged people can have a better life, and say to them something like “I agree with you that a world where no one goes hungry would be a great place, but here is why the force of government is the wrong way to go about attaining such a goal.”
If you actually listened to GW Bush during his first campaign for president, he in no way, shape or form talked about shrinking the size of the goverment. In fact he did essentially what he campaigned on: spending a lot more money on things conservatives supposedly wanted. Real small goverment conservatives (like me) simply ignored this and assumed he was just covering up his true intentions (to come in and gut the federal government) so he could get elected. Indeed, this was made much more credible because this was what Democrats were saying he was going to do.
Unfortunately on the issue of the size of the government and how much he was going to increase it, GW Bush was refreshingly honest, nobody was listening.
- “Interventionist”?? I would call trying to “land” aircraft on a couple of our buildings interventionist. Maintaining bases abroad by treaty is neither interventionist nor imperialistic.
- The best way to be sure that “poor or otherwise disadvantaged people can have a better life” is through free and open markets and NO government involvement (as in a government formed as directed by our constitution).
- I believe that most Republicans (religious right whackos and old guard country club Republicans excepted) ARE for much more limited government. NO Democrats are for limited government.
- I was totally bummed when it appeared that GW was sealing up his first nomination. Forbes clearly had the best ideas of the bunch (I didn’t say perfect…). It seemed to be more of a coronation than a democratic process.
The ideological labels “fascism” and “socialism” bring to mind the arguments that they are two distinct ideologies, polar opposites, in fact. For an alternative argument, read the following Mises article:
Why Nazism Was Socialism and Why Socialism Is Totalitarian
By George Reisman
Posted on 11/11/2005
George,
Giving money/weapons to Israel, Egypt, the Palestinians, etc., is interventionist. Bombing and economic sanctions against Iraq in the 1990s is interventionist. Overthrowing, or trying to overthrow, foreign leaders (Iran, etc.) is interventionist.
All of these things and more were going on before 9/11.
Morally, this doesn’t justify the 9/11 attacks. But reasonable people understand that when the U.S. government kills, starves and meddles in the domestic affairs of, foreigners, those foreigners are not grateful for it. Some of them get angry and lash out.
So let’s not pretend 9/11 came out of the blue or was motivated by hatred of “our freedom” (ha!).
The article was a bit of a rant, rather than a wertfrei analysis of the Republican political doctrine and movement.
I did enjoy the image at the heading, however
Robert,
I suppose that if you were lobbing projectiles into my house from across the street, and then I allied with your neighbors and came over and confronted you, then you would call that “interventionist?”
Are you under some impression that the first time radical Islam ever trespassed on their neighbors, distant and afar, including us, was 9/11? All we want them to do IS JUST STOP!
I guess we were “interventionist” in Japan and Germany in the mid and late ’40′s, with a long history of interventionism since Tripoli 200 years ago?
Colin Powell summed it up when he said that our imperialism extends to asking for “enough land to bury our dead before we leave.”
George,
1. The individual acting freely to confront a criminal is not analogous to the nation state, which uses coercion against its own citizens (taxes, conscription, etc.) to confront the so-called “bad guys.” The individual, based on his own judgement, puts himself, not others, in harm’s way. Also, he doesn’t kill thousands of innocent people in the process and call it “collateral damage.”
2. It is not the Constitutional mandate of the U.S. government to stop “radical Islam” everywhere it exists (while conveniently enriching the politicians’ buddies with lucrative contracts, of course). And, by the way, do you think the U.S. has never trespassed on its neighbors? Never murdered innocent people in pursuit of its lofty goals?
3. The U.S. government does, in fact, have a sorry record of interventionism going back over 100 years that has led to its involvement in war after war. Yes, Roosevelt actively pursued war with Germany and Japan (both of which were monstrously evil states, as was FDR’s ally, the Soviet Union).
4. Colin Powell has said many things which were not true. Remember his Iraq presentation?
Robert,
You’re correct, is not a constitutional mandate to stop radical Islam. But it IS a constitutional mandate that the goverment protect the national security, to which radical Islam IS a threat. Please don’t tell me you don’t get that!!!
Of course the government doesn’t have anywhere near a perfect record, but that doesn’t mean that it’s wrong when it does something right. You’re not making any sort of good argument there.
As for your Colin Powell comment…where did you learn that debating technique?
In his other piece “The Democrats and their Doomed Ideology”, Mr Rockwell advised a bit on how to reshape the Democratic Party. No such luck for the Republican Party! Obviously, Mr Rockwell hints that there is only one solution: get rid of them! I agree with that. I am still wondering though, why Mr Rockwell wanted to save the Democrats. The Old South thing?
On the fascism of the Republicans, I would say that, to the fascist, private property is purely nominal: “you can certainly own your bakery but the price is set by some government bureaucrats”. A socialist thinks that most properties should be owned by the collectivist state. And the communist agrees with the socialists except that he does not you “most properties” but “all properties”. But, the fascist must be a socialist as well because, obviously, in reality, he needs to own a lot of those so-called private properties in order to implement his fascist views. And the socialist must also be a fascist because he is not going to be Libertarian for what all those properties that were not taxed, stolen, regulated… Only the communist is not a fascist because since private property is gone, he does not even need to play the “nominal” game. So my main critics to Mr Rockwell is to reserve the “fascist” epithet to the Republicans.
The real difference between the Republicans and the Democrats is that the color of one is red and the color of the other is blue. Which one is blue and which one is red changes with time.
I’d love the Republicans to feel how socialists they are and I’d love the Democrats to feel how fascists they are.
Comments on this entry are closed.