76 thoughts on “George Phillies on the ballot in New Hampshire; Barr not yet

  1. G.E. Post author

    Hooray for George!

    Wrong on trade, wrong on immigration, wrong on currency, and wrong on the Constitution… But RIGHT on conservatism, and NOT a CIA asset, and where he’s wrong, Barr’s no better.

    I believe today is Dr. Phillies’ birthday, too.

  2. Fred Church Ortiz

    I tried the classmates.com listing for Mr(s?) Hongsakaphadana, but no reply yet.

  3. Ayn R. Key

    Stupid election laws. This sort of stuff would never happen to a major party.

    That said, it’s nice that some states will have a libertarian on the ballot running for President.

  4. Trent Hill

    “But RIGHT on conservatism, and NOT a CIA asset, and where he’s wrong, Barr’s no better.”

    GE–you admire the old right, so how do you lampoon conservatism while admiring the Old Right?

  5. G.E. Post author

    Because the Old Right — the good aspects of it, at least — was classically liberal and did not self-identify as conservatism, which is Red Phillips’s heinous philosophy. He will tell you the word was rarely used prior to Russell Kirk’s book.

  6. G.E. Post author

    Oh, and I really should say that conservatism, as properly understood, is the philosophy of the two major parties.

  7. G.E. Post author

    My understanding (which may be wrong) is that there would be two candidates with “Libertarian” listed under/next to their names.

    Primary difference between Phillies and Barr: Phillies stresses libertarianism and libertarian philosophy, even if his applications are wrong. Barr barely even uses the word. I’d vote for Phillies 1000 times.

  8. paulie cannoli

    My understanding (which may be wrong) is that there would be two candidates with “Libertarian” listed under/next to their names.

    That is correct.

  9. Arthur Torrey

    Also, just to let people know, the LPMA has over 12,000 validated signatures IN HAND as of Wednesday nights State Committee meeting.

    We still have several places that haven’t returned their signatures yet. If we get the same validation rates, it is likely we will be turning in around 15,000 signatures. (Minimum required is 10,000)

    I personally did a modern day “iron pony express” ride of about 375 miles in two days to pick up over 4,600 of those signatures.

    As a side note, the places I picked up included the ones where Gary Fincher did most of his petitioning. (These are the petitions that the LNC wanted to have burned) I don’t know the exact numbers, but have been told he had an EXCELLENT validation rate, as high or higher than the rest of the state…

    So essentially we have the signatures on hand to ensure that the Phillies / Bennet presidential ticket, as well as Robert Underwood for US Senate will be on the ballot in Mass. as soon as we turn the papers in to the Secretary of State’s office – some time before the end of August.

    ART
    LPMA Operations Facilitator
    Speaking mostly for myself

  10. Trent Hill

    “Because the Old Right — the good aspects of it, at least — was classically liberal and did not self-identify as conservatism, which is Red Phillips’s heinous philosophy. He will tell you the word was rarely used prior to Russell Kirk’s book.”

    Did not self-identify as conservative? H.R. Gross and Senator Taft formed the backbone of what would later BECOME conservatism. Taft was the leader of the “Conservative Coalition” to stop the New Deal.

  11. G.E. Post author

    Really? What Taft stood for later became perpetual war?

    Do you believe individuals have rights, Trent? If so, you’re not a conservative. Just ask Red.

  12. Trent Hill

    GE,

    Conservatism stands for perpetual war? Did you listen to anything Ron Paul, Lew Rockwell, or even Pat Buchanan said over the past year. Neo-conservatism is not conservatism,but a warped form of progressivism. Conservatism, in its true form, is anti-war and non-interventionist. Taft to Pat Buchanan is a direct lineage. H.R. Gross to Ron Paul is a direct lineage.

  13. G.E. Post author

    Rockwell? No.

    Johnsson: Do you consider yourself a libertarian?

    Rockwell: Most certainly. What are the choices? Conservative is obviously out, even though the media describe us this way. The term’s heritage dates to the Tory party in Britain, the very mercantilist-landowners who resisted change in the Corn Laws. This group opposed capitalism as socially destabilizing. They didn’t like the merchant class making more money than the old families – meaning that they didn’t want to lose their privileges. In the US, the term conservative came about after World War II. It had no meaning, really, other than to refer to the general desire to be prudent in public affairs, in contrast to the revolutionary tendencies on the left. The problem is that it amounted to a defense of the status quo, and, after Buckley, it was irretrievably wrapped up with the Cold War cause.

    Taft was a xenophobic economic nationalist? That’s news to me.

  14. G.E. Post author

    Again: Do you believe in individual rights? If so, you’re not a conservative.

  15. Trent Hill

    GE,

    Rockwell clearly has said many things on the issue.

    “A relentless theme in the commentary on Ron Paul is that he is not really a Republican, mainly because he dissents from the party on foreign policy. People now associate the Republican Party with crazed war-mongering, massive military spending, and relentless conflict-seeking, to the point even of a messianic global crusade on behalf of American imperial control.

    This is madness, and Ron Paul does dissent. But is he really departing from Republican tradition? In the 1990s, the GOP opposed Clinton’s wars in Somalia and Serbia. It denounced nation building as an extension of the domestic planning state. But those were short-lived moments. The party reverted to its war-mongering self after Bush came to power.

    So for a genuinely non-interventionist policy within the Republican Party we need to go back further to the last of the great statesmen of mid-20th century America: Senator Robert Taft of Ohio, also known as Mr. Republican. His 1951 book A Foreign Policy for Americans was a huge seller and exercised vast influence. ”

    Do you deny that Robert Taft was a conservative?

  16. G.E. Post author

    I was not aware that Taft referred to himself as a conservative, so point to you on that note, Trent.

  17. G.E. Post author

    Taft was far from perfect. In those ways he deviated from classical liberalism and towards statism, yes, he was a conservative.

  18. Trent Hill

    Also GE,

    Lets consult Rockwell or any other fairly-respected libertarian thinker. Find ONE source that says Taft was ANYTHING but Conservative, and ill cede the debate. All iv found say he is “die hard conservative”. And indeed this seems to mesh with his actions, as his led the “Conservative Coalition” and the “conservative wing” of the Republican Party.

  19. Trent Hill

    GE,

    He was ALL conservative. Non-interventionist (check, both Con and Lib). Against most domestic spending (check, both Con and Lib). However, he was also a protectionist and a social conservative. Both Conservative bents.

    I’ll revoke my statement though–at least one scholar has referred to him as “broadly speaking, a libertarian”. James Patterson, in his book, Mr. Republican: A Biography of Robert A. Taft (1972). Pick it up, its a good book. Although you’ll cringe when Taft support Social Security and Low-income housing–there were a couple years where he forgot his own ideology.

  20. G.E. Post author

    Yes, when he supported Social Security and low-income housing, Taft-Hartley and other sell-outs, he was being a conservative.

    I did not know Taft was a protectionist, but this is clearly an anti-freedom conservative position, always and forever intended to benefit the privileged classes and the ruling elites at the expense of the middle class and the poor.

    So I reject those elements of conservatism within the Old Right, and celebrate its classically liberal elements — free trade, non-intervention, and limited government.

  21. G.E. Post author

    Interventionist warmongering is inherent in classical conservatism; the mercantilist/imperialist philosophy of Crown and Cross that dominated the world from Constantine until 1776, and then again from 1860 on.

  22. Trent Hill

    “Yes, when he supported Social Security and low-income housing, Taft-Hartley and other sell-outs, he was being a conservative.”

    Rediculous. Social Security and Low-income housing were supported universally by liberals and had scant support amongst conservatives. He was being a maverick liberal when he voted for those things. Taft-Hartley, was protectionist and could be considered liberal or conservative,but not libertarian.

    So you’ve dug yourself a hole now. Describe to me how Social Security or Low-income housing fits with any definition of conservatism in in the 1950s or 1960s. If you dont, i’ll assume you’ve conceded the point.

  23. G.E. Post author

    Social Security and low-income housing are creations of the regime designed to sate and control the populace. They are bread and circuses. They are interventionist. All of this is perfectly compatible with classical conservatism, which is STATISM by any other name.

    Real liberalism, by contrast, is the opposite.

    How about this: What percentage of folks in your state of Louisiana do you think supported social security? The state went 93%, 89%, 86%, and 81% for FDR, one of the most statist presidents in history.

    Was Louisiana full of “liberals”? No. It was then and is now full of hardcore statist “conservatives.”

  24. Trent Hill

    “Interventionist warmongering is inherent in classical conservatism; the mercantilist/imperialist philosophy of Crown and Cross that dominated the world from Constantine until 1776, and then again from 1860 on.”

    Again, ill refer you to Pat Buchanan, Lew Rockwell, Bill Kauffman, Ron Paul, and even Russel Kirk. Kirk, the man who defined “classicial conservatism”, was anti-war and non-interventionist. As was his main impetus, Edmund Burke. He despised Neoconservatives.

    As for the broad brush you just painted of “conservatism” via mercantilism/imperialism–Imperialism and mercantilism are progressive (i.e. Leftist) proposals. You’re embarassing yourself.

  25. G.E. Post author

    Kirk did not define classical conservatism. Your assertion is absurd! Classical conservatism is the philosophy to which classical liberals were opposed.

    It is a classic conservative trick to deny the existence of history, but you can’t get off the hook that easy, Trent. You are continually digging a deeper hole for yourself.

    The original “left” was the laissez-faire classical liberals of the French parliment who were against the original right — mercantilist, imperialist, conservatives!

    Mercantilism is absolutely a conservative ideology — it is the entire basis for “conservatism” and one that your CP and the odious Buchanan still celebrates!

    The absurdity to turn history on its head in 1984 fashion by claiming that imperialism is a leftist philosophy… This is the giant conservative lie that denies all historical fact and says that the British Empire was “liberal” and the Revolutionaries “conservatives.” Complete propaganda with no basis in historical fact.

  26. G.E. Post author

    Do you believe individuals have rights, I ask for the third time?

    If so, you are not a conservative. Conservatism denies that individuals have something called “rights.” Just ask your buddy Red.

  27. G.E. Post author

    I missed a few points:

    1) Lew Rockwell is NOT a conservative. Period. Give that up. He doesn’t claim to be and he’s not.

    2) Bill Kauffman claims to be a conservative, and yet he idolizes George McGovern and champions arch-inflationist William Jennings Bryan. Under no circumstances, your definition or mine, are these anti-establishment liberals in any way “conservative,” and thus Kauffman’s definition is completely without merit. He even says he votes for Libertarians and Greens (not CP).

  28. Trent Hill

    “Kirk did not define classical conservatism.”

    Of course he did. I didnt say he CREATED it, I said he defined it–this is what most people recognize as Kirk’s greatest work.

    “The absurdity to turn history on its head in 1984 fashion by claiming that imperialism is a leftist philosophy… This is the giant conservative lie that denies all historical fact and says that the British Empire was “liberal” and the Revolutionaries “conservatives.””

    Ignoring, of course, the pre-American dispositions of what is liberal and what is conservative, liberalism is the ideology of war. I ignore pre-american history because we are talking particularly about the American versions of these ideologies,which often did not (and do not) mesh with their international counterparts. This why when you call someone a “liberal” today, you mean it as an insult. We are not talking in terms of “classical” interpretations, but of the ones which were considered “modern” at the time of Senator Robert Taft–so perhaps I should forgive your indescretions against this particular ideology because you are looking from a wider lens. The fact is this—Progressivism in America is, and in recent history has been, aligned with Liberalism. To point to a more friendly dichotomy, maybe we should use “Progressive” and “Conservative”?

    As for turning history on its head–how this for absurd? Claiming Robert Taft wasnt conservative and claiming True Conservatism is pro-war! Your assertions directly contradict Ron Paul and Lew Rockwell, your self-described heroes.

  29. Trent Hill

    “Do you believe individuals have rights, I ask for the third time?

    If so, you are not a conservative. Conservatism denies that individuals have something called “rights.” Just ask your buddy Red.”

    Another rediculous assertion. Conservatism seeks to preserve individual rights, but not radically. This is why im a self-described “Conservative-libertarian”. The libertarians preserve individual rights above all else. Conservatism seek to preserve them,but sacrifice some of them in the name of “particulararity” (this where we disagree). Liberals/Progressives disdain individual rights.

  30. Trent Hill

    I missed a few points:

    1) Lew Rockwell is NOT a conservative. Period. Give that up. He doesn’t claim to be and he’s not.

    2) Bill Kauffman claims to be a conservative, and yet he idolizes George McGovern and champions arch-inflationist William Jennings Bryan. Under no circumstances, your definition or mine, are these anti-establishment liberals in any way “conservative,” and thus Kauffman’s definition is completely without merit. He even says he votes for Libertarians and Greens (not CP).”

    Did I ever claim Rockwell was a conservative? No. This is a wild assumption. I merely referred to him as an author you respect,and said you should read what HE has to say about True Conservatism, which is non-interventionist and small-government—contrary to what you have claimed here.

  31. Trent Hill

    And for the second time–describe to me how Social Security or low-income housing was a “conservative” position in 1952—even by your wild and twisted definition.

  32. G.E. Post author

    Lew Rockwell says “[Conservatism's] heritage dates to the Tory party in Britain, the very mercantilist-landowners who resisted change in the Corn Laws. This group opposed capitalism as socially destabilizing. They didn’t like the merchant class making more money than the old families – meaning that they didn’t want to lose their privileges.”

    I do not contradict him.

    Ron Paul uses the term “conservative” incorrectly in order to speak to a lay-audience that’s been brainwashed by government schools.

    You should know better.

    If Kirk “defined” the philosophy, he LIED (a staple of conservatism), because the philosophy clear IS mercantilism and imperialism. That’s what it is. Period. To deny it denies the entirety of Western history.

    Americans are historically ignorant, but you’re not. You should not bask in the filth of historical ignorance and deny the origins of the terms “left” and “right,” “conservative” and “liberal.”

    Your point about Progressivism is a good one. In true terms, conservatism can be seen as the creed of George W. Bush, Progressivism as that of Barack Obama, and liberalism as that of Ron Paul.

  33. G.E. Post author

    I already did:

    Social Security and low-income housing are creations of the regime designed to sate and control the populace. They are bread and circuses. They are interventionist. All of this is perfectly compatible with classical conservatism, which is STATISM by any other name.

    Real liberalism, by contrast, is the opposite.

    And while you’re at it, could you answer me this question:

    How about this: What percentage of folks in your state of Louisiana do you think supported social security? The state went 93%, 89%, 86%, and 81% for FDR (in 1932, 36, 40, and 44), one of the most statist presidents in history.

    Was Louisiana full of “liberals”? No. It was then and is now full of hardcore statist “conservatives.”

  34. G.E. Post author

    If you think individual rights can be abrogated for any reason, then you don’t believe in them at all.

    Just as if you think the Constitution can be ignored in the name of passing an illegal anti-abortion law, it really means you believe in unlimited, Lincolnian Godvernment.

    By the way: I just read Ron Paul’s book Abortion and Liberty — amazingly good book!

    http://files.meetup.com/504095/Ron%20Paul-Abortion%20and%20Liberty.pdf

  35. Trent Hill

    “Your point about Progressivism is a good one. In true terms, conservatism can be seen as the creed of George W. Bush, Progressivism as that of Barack Obama, and liberalism as that of Ron Paul.”

    Thank you. Now do you admit Ron Paul, H.R. Gross, and Robert Taft are of the same lineage–regardless of what label you’d like to give that lineage?

  36. sunshinebatman

    So, LPMA turned in 15,000 Phillies petitions? How many Barr petitions did they turn in? How many of the 15,000 for Phillies were gathered after the convention in May?

  37. G.E. Post author

    Trent – I’m not familiar with H.R. Gross (nor thoroughly with Taft). I think Robert Taft is a poor-man’s Ron Paul, but generally, yes, of the same lineage and I never denied that. You’ve twisted things around pretty badly here, Trent.

    Fred – The book demolishes all pro-abortionist arguments, left and libertarian.

    This is a thread hijacking of historic proportions, but there are a few items I found particularly interesting that “conservative” abortion opponents are likely to object to:

    1. Ron Paul sort of skirts the rape issue by saying pregnancy caused by rape is rare. Elsewhere, he says that sex (consensual) is an act that obligates parents. Is Ron Paul open to abortion in the case of rape? Admittedly, rape and “the life of the mother” are canards used by pro-abortionists, but there are rare and incredibly rare, respectively, situations where these things do/may occur.

    2. Ron Paul says that pregnancy can be prevented after rape. A lot of conservatives think the morning-after bill is a form of abortion. Paul said in a Google interview that he was not opposed to it.

    I’ve had to review some biology that I was never taught. Although Paul claims he believes life begins at conception, which I assume means fertilization, elsewhere he seems to possibly indicate that abortion is something that takes place prior to implantation, not conception.

  38. paulie cannoli

    So, LPMA turned in 15,000 Phillies petitions?

    Yes.


    How many Barr petitions did they turn in?

    None of the petitions had Barr’s name on them. When George alerted Sean Haugh at LP National
    that the state regime had reversed itself on the issue of substitution, Sean had the option of halting the petition drive and starting over with Barr petitions. He chose not to. The lawsuit over substitution is in the works, also thanks to George.


    How many of the 15,000 for Phillies were gathered after the convention in May?

    About 3/4, roughly.

  39. Trent Hill

    I already did:

    Social Security and low-income housing are creations of the regime designed to sate and control the populace. They are bread and circuses. They are interventionist. All of this is perfectly compatible with classical conservatism, which is STATISM by any other name.

    Real liberalism, by contrast, is the opposite.

    And while you’re at it, could you answer me this question:

    How about this: What percentage of folks in your state of Louisiana do you think supported social security? The state went 93%, 89%, 86%, and 81% for FDR (in 1932, 36, 40, and 44), one of the most statist presidents in history.

    Was Louisiana full of “liberals”? No. It was then and is now full of hardcore statist “conservatives.””

    Domestic interventionism like social security and low-income housing is almost universally despised by conservatives. Again,you’re twisting reality to make yourself right–and look like a fool doing it. It is LIBERALS/Progressive who back these measures,and has been since Woodrow Wilson at LEAST.

    As for Louisiana–it has NOT always been conservative. From 1918 until 1964, Louisiana was dominated by Liberal/Progressive politicians who promised “wealth sharing” and more adeptly pandered to the Agricultural types. In 1956, Eisenhower’s victory in Louisiana would foreshadow Goldwater’s victory in 1964. From then on, Louisiana would lean more Conservative,but with vast swaths of its voting populace remaining Democratic and consering the issue of segregation or of “states rights” first and foremost. I seperate segregation and “states rights” becuase the first was hostile to other races,while the second tended to be sympathetic,but still constitutionalist.
    GE–you obviously know nothing of Louisiana Political History–dont mouth off.

  40. Trent Hill

    “Trent – I’m not familiar with H.R. Gross (nor thoroughly with Taft). I think Robert Taft is a poor-man’s Ron Paul, but generally, yes, of the same lineage and I never denied that. You’ve twisted things around pretty badly here, Trent.”

    If they are of the same lineage–and EACH of them called THEMSELVES Conservatives. Then you are essentially argueing with the titans of the Old Right (and Ron Paul) themselves. Ron Paul will alternatively refer to himself as “True conservative” and (rarely) Libertarian. But NEVER “classically liberal”–not even at the Mises Institute,where such a statement would make babies talk and dogs walk upright.

  41. paulie cannoli

    So, GE, how would you now the ‘Ovarian Marxism” arguments you used to make, IE that abortion is eviction of trespass?

    I am not saying whether you were right then or are right now. I’m just interested in the thinking process and what caused you to change your mind.

  42. Fred Church Ortiz

    I just read the thing on my lunch break. You’re right that the rape issue was skirted, I’ve never taken how often a consequence might occur to be a strong argument for or against the ethics of anything. However, while the point concerning the obligations of parents might not hold up in a rape situation, RP does maintain throughout that the unborn has a natural right to life. It’s disappointing he didn’t dig much deeper.

    As to point 2, I think that depends on what you mean by morning after pill. My understanding is that RU-486 is an abortificient that works after fertilization, whereas the drug more properly marketed as the morning after pill prevents fertilization even when the flood waters are cresting over the sandbag barrier – but the terms are often conflated. I don’t know what kind of procedures were in use at the time the book was written or how RP understood them to work.

  43. sunshinebatman

    Trent, don’t forget that Huey Long announced new “10th Amendment enforcement” legislation for Louisiana the night before he was assassinated… this is mentioned in T Harry Williams’ bio…

  44. Trent Hill

    sunshinebatman,

    Many people think that is why Long was assassinated.

    Frankly–I call bullshit. His “enforcement” legislation wouldnt have passed a voice-vote on the floor by a simply majority. The entire nation was just clapping along with FDR shat on our Liberty.

  45. G.E. Post author

    Trent – Read Ron Paul’s Gold, Peace, and Prosperity if you think he rejects the title “classical liberal.”

    Taft was pre-Kirk, and regardless, it matters not what he called himself — conservatism had a meaning and still has a meaning that predates the United States.

    Louisiana was full of “liberals” prior to 1956 who swung on a dime and supported Barry Goldwater in 1964? Hmmm…. I think we know the real reason behind that switch, which you allude to. The people had no change in political philosophy, just in the circumstances of how the government was behaving.

    Conservatism is and has always been synonymous with statism. You ignore the root definitions of the terms, as well as the left/right axis, because it makes you feel good to call yourself a conservative. Red Phillips can tell you that if you believe that individuals have rights, you are NOT a conservative, but a liberal.

  46. Fred Church Ortiz

    Red Phillips can tell you that if you believe that individuals have rights, you are NOT a conservative, but a liberal.

    And does so here.

  47. G.E. Post author

    paulie – My change of heart on the issue of abortion started when my wife was hospitalized at 28 weeks gestation in late June, 2006. My daughter was eventually born six weeks premature on August 26 of that year. And then, while managing Ron Paul’s Flint office, I worked with some abortion-clinic protesters who put a new face on the pro-life cause; often trumpeted by actual Ovarian Marxists.

    I also read a book called Freedomnomics that treated Roe v. Wade as an intervention with unintended consequences. Contrary to the bogus arguments put forth by Freakonomics, the post-Roe birthrate of “at-risk” (unwanted) did not plummet, but soar. Roe, as an unconstitutional and illegitimate intervention against government’s mandate to defend life, has provided an artificial subsidy to sexual promiscuity, encouraged risky behaviors, destablized families, etc.

    Why was I so adamently “pro-choice” before? Because the vast majority (99.99%) of pro-lifers are idiots, sexists, and religious fundamentalists filled with hate in their hearts, and I did not ever seriously consider the issue before I condemend them as wrong. But just as there is a tiny minority of people (libertarians) who oppose the Civil Rights Act on non-racist grounds, so too are there a few (libertarians) who oppose abortion — an initiation of force — on solidly libertarian grounds, as opposed to male-chauvinist, traditionalist, or supernatural grounds.

  48. G.E. Post author

    Thanks, Fred.

    Yes, conservatism holds that all rights come from the state. It is a thoroughly statist and evil creed. You should divorce yourself from it as soon as possible, Trent.

  49. paulie cannoli

    Conservatism and rightism originally meant statism.

    Since the US political tradition had a great deal of liberalism (in the original sense) in it, what Trent is calling classical conservatism was trying to conserve that liberal tradition – but it was also conserving the illiberal, truly classically conservative aspects of the US political tradition, such as Jim Crow.

    Now that New Deal, Great Society and other progressive programs have become a grafted part of the US political tradition, mainstream modern conservatism tries to conserve them.

  50. Trent Hill

    “Trent – Read Ron Paul’s Gold, Peace, and Prosperity if you think he rejects the title “classical liberal.””

    I didnt say he rejected it–but he never uses it.

    As for your assertion that Louisiana couldn’t have gone from “liberal” to “conservative” in 8 years–you’ve done a decent amount of political changing within 4 years or so,right? Segregation and the Civil Rights Movements + the 1950/60s changed alot of things in the American Political spectrum.

    Again ill say–you know nothing of Louisiana political history. Read a book,then we’ll talk–although I suspect you’d be regurgitating nonsense from an anarchist, rather than anything of substance. As for Conservatism being synonymous with statism–let us look. The most consistent opponents of statism in Congress? Ron Paul and Jimmy Duncan. Two conservatives with mean libertarian streaks.

  51. Trent Hill

    “You should divorce yourself from it as soon as possible, Trent.”

    Done. Im a Constitutionalist.

  52. G.E. Post author

    You’re saying Ron Paul never used the term “classically liberal” in G,P,P? Well, you’re factually wrong.

    Hey, I watched Ken Burns’s documentary on Huey Long. As far as I’m concerned, that makes me an expert!

    An entire state swinging from the most statist position possible to the least statist available is a lot different from a 25-year-old person switching on a few things (always anti-war, for civil liberties, etc.) once exposed to economics.

    Tell me: Did the entire state of Louisiana read Bastiat between 1944 and 1964? No. You know the truth, Trent.

    Ron Paul can call himself a conservative all he wants. That is not what he is in the historically accurate taxonomy, and he’s smart enough to know that. He’s not going to get bogged down in a lexiconographic debate like we are because he has more important things to do.

    Conservatism has a meaning and if you had any awareness of the history of the world or existence of countries other than the United States, you’d know what it meant.

    If “Nazism” became synonymous with all of the things we love, would you call yourself a Nazi? Conservatism killed a lot more people than Nazis.

  53. G.E. Post author

    Even though the Constitution was an organized coup to subvert the Articles? :)

    We should probably give it a rest.

  54. Trent Hill

    Of course I know what happened to Louisiana between ’56 and ’64, Segregation policies switched from the anti-segregation populist liberals like Long to subtle-racists like Goldwater in the Republican party after the National Democrats aligned themselves with desegregation forces. The Republicans, while still overtly racist, were less openly hostile to minorities (than the dixiecrats) and FAR better on economics and War. This means they went from a very “statist/Liberal/Progressive” position to one which was “less government/conservative”.

    The dichotomy is unimportant to me GE. You claim “conservatism has killed a lot more people than Nazi’s”. Im not going to have that debate, because im not interested in the historical terms “conservative and liberal” because they’ve become so confused and are boilerplates. However, the Nazi’s were progressives, as were the communists and all socialists. Again–im not interested in a taxonomy debate.

    Bob Taft’s form of politics is the same as Ron Paul’s, Jimmy Duncan’s, H.R. Gross’s, and Howard Buffet. All of them called THEMSELVES conservatives, with Paul and Buffett occassionally calling themselves Libertarians or “conservatives in the classical-liberal tradition”. This is what the world understands them to be because its what they called themselves, and what they’ve come to be called over many decades—why fight an uphill battle over taxonomy?

  55. G.E. Post author

    It is news to me that Buffett, etc. called themselves conservatives.

    Why are you twisting things around to make it sound like I’m attacking Taft and defending the Communists?

    You’re the one who started this debate about taxonomy when asking why I agreed with George Phillies on conservatism (Phillies, by the way, is TOO conservative for me). The word has a meaning, and no matter how much you or Ron Paul misuse it, the meaning is not lost. Just ask Red Phillips, who has the courage to admit the truth.

  56. Trent Hill

    Im not twisting anything. Im asking about why you so stringently attack “conservatism”, when what you really hate is “centralization of power” or “anti-liberty politics” or whatever. Ron Paul, Jimmy Duncan, Walter Jones, H.R. Gross, Bob Taft, etc have made it so that Conservatism means small-government, pro-liberty, anti-war. If it is good enough for them,its good enough for me.

  57. G.E. Post author

    A tiny minority of people saying conservatism means one thing when all of history says it means something else does not change its meaning.

    Dick Cheney’s version of conservatism is historically accurate and culturally dominant.

  58. Trent Hill

    “Dick Cheney’s version of conservatism is historically accurate and culturally dominant.”

    Ohk then. But once again–Ron Paul, Lew Rockwell, Bill Kauffman–all disagree with you. I trust their scholarly work over yours, no offense. You’re fun to listen to though =)

    Dick Cheney’s conservatism is actually Progressivism,and there is nothing “conservative” about it–even using your definition. Once again,you are simply lumping people you hate into one big category.

  59. Lance Brown

    Man, if libertarians spent as much time talking about the movement’s future as they do its past…

    FWIW, G.E., my offhand recollection is that Barr has used the word “libertarian” multiple times in just about every video appearance I’ve seen of his. I’m not sure where you’re getting your stats on him “barely using” the word, but it doesn’t match up with my experience so far.

    It’s also worth keeping in mind that “libertarian” doesn’t necessarily mean anything to the mainstream voting populace, and in a lot of the cases where it does mean something, it’s a very distorted and unfriendly picture of libertarianism. On the other hand, “small government” defines itself; “giving power back to the people” has little if any baggage. And “fighting against the political status quo” rings truer to most Americans than “libertarian” anything – if only because they know it and can digest it. And “more freedom” sounds a lot less high-falutin’ and strange than “libertariansm”. LP candidates automatically carry the “Libertarian” designation, and it’s reported every time they are in the news; it’s not necessarily required to say “my positions equal ‘libertarian'”.

    Voters are not necessarily crazy about parties and political factions. The cores of the parties are, obviously, but the vast majority of voters find it off-putting. To them, Libertarians pushing “libertarian” feels like an anti-invitation: “you have to be this way or you don’t count” (or don’t get it, etc.).

    I want the idea of libertarianism to get out there as much as the next guy, but the word “libertarian” is hardly a magic pill to make that happen. In many ways it can be more of a burden, and even serve to confuse folks (who think “libertarian” equals whatever unfavorable stereotype they’ve been fed). “More freedom”, on the other hand

    As far as I’ve seen, Barr does a pretty good job of balancing “libertarian” branding language with describing libertarianism in other terms. (At least when he’s not misrepresenting it…)

  60. G.E. Post author

    Trent – So if these people (who do not disagree with my assessment, I will guarantee you) said that the sky was in fact red, you’d believe them?

    It does not matter what they say (and at least one of them doesn’t even say what you say he says): A fact is a fact is a fact. If Ron Paul comes out tomorrow and says, “You know what, my philosophy is actually righfully known as progressivism and, oh, by the way, Santa Clause exists” it would not change the fact that his philosophy is properly known as radical libertarianism and Santa is a hoax.

    Conservatism antedates Robert Taft, Trent. And it is ugly. The terms have origins and meanings that you can reject as much as you’d like, but it doesn’t change objective reality.

    Lew Rockwell has admitted my understanding is correct, and I’ve provided you with the quote.

    Ron Paul clearly knows this but he’s not going to get bogged down in this B.S. He is speaking to ignorant masses, not fighting over the “true” definition of a word.

    Paul and especially Rockwell, who calls him “the greatest man I’ve ever known,” were influenced by Rothbard who’s definition of conservatism I’m employing here. You should also see Roderick Long.

    Bill Kauffman is a polemicist who puts McGovern and Bryan on pedestals and says his form of conservatism leads him to vote Libertarian/Green and not CP. I enjoyed his book, but he has no credibility in defining conservatism.

  61. G.E. Post author

    Yes, Trent… You are using the Orwellian transmogrifications of the words; the regime’s definitions. When Big Brother says up is down and right is left, you don’t have to agree.

  62. Sean Scallon

    Sigh…Sore losers like Phillies and Keyes are the bane of non-major party existence and keep them non-major parties. The only time a local state Republican or Democratic party ran its own slate of electors different than the national party took place in 1960 when Mississippi and Alabama did so.

    As a decentralist, I’m not saying a state party doesn’t have right to do this, but that doesn’t make it right either.

  63. Trent Hill

    GE,

    Im going to say this as simply as possible. The 3-4 times iv said it previously–you have not read it, or do not care. Let me state it as simply and clearly as possible.

    I. Do. Not. Care. About. The. Historical. Implications. Of. The. Word.
    Got it?

    I. Do. Not. Care. About. The. Philosophical. Implications. Of. The. Word.
    It is a word, and thus a tool when speaking.

    In American history since 1918 or so, Conservatism has meant classical-liberalism, altohugh often with a socially-conservative bent. Like Ron Paul, I am not going to get bogged down in taxonomy–because there is no benefit. However, the benefit of naming myself “conservative” over “libertarian” is in the company I keep, and broad appeal. Ron Paul knows that by identifying himself as “conservative”, he appeals to a MUCH wider range of people. Similarly, he knows that the general public identifies “libertarian” as “that blue guy from Montana” and Harry Browne. While there is still a LARGE section of the population who can identify conservatism as that ideology followed by Robert Taft, H.R. Gross, and co.

    I’v read Hayek’s “Why I’m Not a Conservative”. It gives a decent storyline of the usages of the various labels here–not that I care. Resurrecting the word “liberal” to something meaning libertarian is impossible. “Libertarian” has such a low recognition that it could take decades to enter the American lexicon. Conservative, however, is already in the American language,and is as well known as “liberal”. At the same time, “Old Conservatism” (the Conservatism of Ron Paul or Robert Taft) is still recognized and is the VERY CLOSEST thing to a “classical liberal” that there is.

    I’ll say one more time–I do not care about words. If “Liberal” ever becomes a word that is easier to use in conjunction with converting people to the cause of Freedom–ill use it. Until such a time, Conservative is as good as any,and appeals to much wider array of liberty-lovers than “liberal”, “classical liberal” or “libertarian”.

  64. Trent Hill

    Great,now we can start over!

    I would like to reclaim the word “conservative” to mean what it meant during the time of the Old Right. That is to say, it meant a socially-conservative strain of libertarianism closely identified with Garet Garrett, Frank Chodrov, and Robert Taft.

    Can we agree on that?

  65. G.E. Post author

    Those are admirable figures, particularly the first two.

    One thing I’ve learned here: I was not aware that these people referred to themselves as conservatives.

  66. Trent Hill

    To be fair–in these days, they likely wouldnt.

    And im not positive Garet Garrett ever called HIMSELF conservative–but his biographer has.

Leave a Reply