Kn@ppster on Libertarian National Convention

Posted by Tom Knapp at Kn@ppster:


I Volunteer

Left (your left, not mine): Kelly Wall, editor, Voice of Freedom (Libertarian Party of Tennessee newsletter).

Right: Two-term Wilson County (Tennessee) Commissioner and 2010 state legislative candidate Heather Scott.


Notes from Left Field

…[I]t was great to get to spend some time (not nearly enough time, but some) with Chris Lempa, James Tuttle, Gary Chartier and other left-libertarian luminaries at the Libertarian National Convention over the weekend.

After putting out the Facebook announcement for the “Radicals Luncheon” on Saturday, I got more and more worried about attendance. I was hoping for 30, but I was afraid it would be ten. Shouldn’t have worried — I stopped counting when I reached 50. It was an entirely social event, no presentations, etc., just fellowship and socializing.

The turnout put a spring in my (backache-plagued) step when I left the luncheon to attend the organizational meeting of the Libertarian Non-Intervention Caucus. Within 24 hours of our formation, we had not only successfully lobbied for the defeat of a mildly hawkish change to the LP’s platform, but saw the existing plank replaced with an even stronger non-intervention statement written by Rebecca Sink-Burris (who won my vote for at-large LNC with her proposal — so far as I know she is not affiliated with the caucus, btw). Thanks to George Phillies for bringing the caucus together.[..]

93 thoughts on “Kn@ppster on Libertarian National Convention

  1. Robert Milnes

    Did I mention that I’m looking for a radical anarchist libertarian woman for vp slot on Independent fusion ticket for 2012? Must be willing to admit being 35 or older!

  2. Whats the point

    You left people may as well be democrap. If this lp was major lefties, we will be right back where we started from. The dumocrap = socialist.

    Left Repulipuk, Left Dumican, Left, whatever. No matter how you slice it, it is a liberal = socialist. Period!

  3. exactly

    Left (liberal)

    Liberals usually embrace freedom of choice in personal matters, but tend to support significant government control of the economy. They generally support a government-funded “safety net” to help the disadvantaged, and advocate strict regulation of business. Liberals tend to favor environmental regulations, defend civil liberties and free expression, support government action to promote equality, and tolerate diverse lifestyles.

  4. problem is Liberals

    are not allowing choice in anything, anymore, they are socialist communist.

  5. Robert Milnes

    Liberals are usually-in present day usa-associated with the democratic party. They are reactionary-preserving and protecting the status quo. Obama was endorsed by Teddy Kennedy -longstanding well defined liberal. Therefore Obama is definitely a liberal. Progressives are revolutionary. Their vote + liberals + blacks won the nomination for him.

  6. paulie Post author

    Did I mention that I’m looking for a radical anarchist libertarian woman for vp slot on Independent fusion ticket for 2012?

    LOL. Only a few thousand times.

  7. Eric Dondero

    Keep going Knapp. Look at it this way. The more and more radically leftwing the Libertarian Party’s platform on foreign policy/defense becomes, the more and more Libertarians will join the Republican Liberty Caucus.

    I talked to numerous delegates to the convention in St. Louis. Those from the South, and surprisingly from New England, had one foot in the LP and another in the RLC. Their reasoning for being cautious on the LP? The continued leftwing driftward on foreign policy. Many of these guys were Veterans and were truly disgusted with the antics of your buddies Ernie Hancock, and the beareded wild-eyed banner holding crew. Screaming at fellow Libertarians that they’re not “radical enough,” while they come up the escalator is never an effective recruiting tool.

  8. Eric Dondero

    While Knapp and his buddy Alex Jones/911 Truther Ernie Hancock, have a lot of support from certain parts of the LP delegation, their support among Libertarians who are actually running for public office is very low.

    Take Lex Green running for Governor of Illinois. Or, Fred Haase, Libertarian nominee for US Senate in Alaska. Or, Jim Prindle, running what is arguably the most active and agressive Libertarian campaign for the US House anywheres in the US. These guys wouldn’t be caught dead near a Knappster/Hancokian.

    Funny how running for public office makes one more mainstream, and more pro-American, and less stridently pro-kooky fringe.

  9. Thomas M. Sipos

    Dondero: I talked to numerous delegates to the convention in St. Louis. Those from the South, and surprisingly from New England, had one foot in the LP and another in the RLC. Their reasoning for being cautious on the LP? The continued leftwing driftward on foreign policy.

    I’ve voiced my suspicion that pro-war neocons, working through the Reform faction, are trying to dilute the LP’s antiwar stance.

    Brian Holtz weeped that I’d smeared the Reform faction with my paranoid suspicions.

    Thanks, Dondero, for confirming my suspicion that pro-war neocons are trying to dilute the LP’s antiwar stance.

  10. Thomas L. Knapp

    “Keep going Knapp. Look at it this way. The more and more libertarian the Libertarian Party’s platform on foreign policy/defense becomes, the more and more supporters of military-industrial complex welfare-queenism will join the Republican Liberty Caucus.”

    There, fixed that for ya.

  11. Michael H. Wilson

    exactly @ 3 wrote; “Liberals … generally support a government-funded “safety net” to help the disadvantaged…”

    I have on more than on occasion referred to myself as a freemarket liberal. In talking to others when the issue of poverty comes up I point out that if we open the marketplace especially in the areas of housing, transportation, medicine and get rid of occupational licensing, there will be less need for a safety net.

    Much of the poverty in America is structural in nature. It is not because people are lazy. It is because the government has erected barriers that keep people poor.

    We get the rich off welfare the poor won’t need it. Then there will be fewer people demanding a safety net for the poor in the first place.

    We should emphasize a system where wealth percolates up instead of trickles down.

    The more competition we have the less opportunity there is for money to settle in one pool so to speak. In fact I’ll suggest that a free market will be less likely to be capitalistic than the present system. That is because of the increase in competition there will be less opportunity to accumulate large amounts of money.

  12. Environmentalist Greens

    The greens are too left, as well as overdoing with there protecting the environment, Lake Tahoe for example. As well as areas in Idaho, if the trees were thinned out, a lot of homes would not have been damaged. Of course the environmentalist people stuck there noses in and Nature took its course anyways. Actually because of the fire a lot more trees have been damages where if there were controlled thinning it would have been a lot better. Also the oil, from what I understand, they again sticking their nose, Too bad the oil was dug in the ocean instead of land, now we have major major damage of wildlife. But congress is also at fault as well, for idiocy thinking because its all about the all mighty dollar. If Government would stay out of people inventions, maybe we wouldn’t have needed oil a long time ago and all this could have been avoid.
    The lord above gives us nature and beauty and it is being destroyed.

  13. Brian Holtz

    Brian Holtz weeped that I’d smeared the Reform faction with my paranoid suspicions.

    Heh. There is no “Reform faction” any more. Except for the 87 delegates who voted for Hancock, and the smattering of delegates who voted for the motion to restore the 2000 platform, we’re all reformers now. (Hancock repeatedly says that the only legitimate purpose of government is to protect individual rights, so even he is apparently a fan of the one Platform provision that the anarchist holdout remnant fixates on.)

    The Reform Caucus’s formal operations ceased as of Denver two years ago, because there’s no need any more. Ever since the delegates accepted our proposal to repair the Platform, the Platform has ceased to be a significant source of division within the LP. St. Louis was the first convention since 2002 in which the Platform was not completely overhauled. The Platform Wars ended in Denver, and in St. Louis the last few tattered platform warriors came out from their jungle redoubts to face the reality of platform peace.

    my suspicion that pro-war neocons are trying to dilute the LP’s antiwar stance

    Yeah, all five of them. Dondero lives in a fantasy world, where Sharia Law is an imminent threat in America, and “numerous delegates” oppose the LP’s “leftward drift in foreign policy”. Here in the real world, the LP remains just as solidly antiwar as I’ve documented it being since before the Iraq war even started, and there is zero prospect for that changing.

  14. Eric Dondero

    Hmmm? Please explain how it is that someone can be a NeoCon and be Pro-Choice on abortion and Pro-Marijuana Legalization? Golly gee, I always thought NeoCons were prudish bastards who supported the War on Drugs like Bill Bennett, Pat Robertson, Bill Kristol, Fred Barnes, et.al.

    Are you saying that there’s no difference between Pro-Choicers and Pro-Lifers anymore? A Pro-Drug War person, is just the same as someone who wants to Legalize Drugs?

    Pro-Gambling Wayne Root is equal to Anti-Gambling NeoCons like Gary Bauer?

    Wow! That’s quite a statement there. Just abolish all the old labels. Anyone who isn’t a pacifist on foreign policy, despite their stances on Legalization, Prostitution, Gambling, Abortion, Seat Belt laws, doesn’t matter; they’re all “NeoCons.”

  15. Eric Dondero

    So Holz, IslamoFascism isn’t an “immenent threat” to the United States?

    How do you explain the 13 soldiers that were just brutally gunned down at Ft. Hood, by a Muslim? Oh, I guess it wasn’t Islam that cause him to comit those murders, huh? Must have been the teasing from his fellow officers.

    And Faisal Shahzad? The Christmas Bomber over Detroit? How about the Arkansas Recruting Station shooter last year? The plot to blow up the skyscraper in Dallas?

    No imminent threat ‘eh?

  16. Eric Dondero

    Uncomfortable fact for those who doubt the threat of Islamic Terrorism to the United States:

    More Islamic attacks and plots to attack the US in 2009, than in all 8 years of the entire Bush administration combined.

  17. Eric Dondero

    Sipos, I don’t even know Brian Holz. If he was at the convention, I wouldn’t have known. Never met the guy. And I was there for two whole days.

    Reform faction doesn’t mean Pro-Defense. Holz seems like a nice guy, but he also seems kind of wimpy on foreign policy to me. Definitely not an LDC-er and most likely would not be welcomed in the LDC.

    He may be for “mainstreaming” the LP in some areas, perhaps watering down drug legalization or something, but on foreign policy/defense at least, he seems more Tom Knappian/Ernest Hackock – type.

  18. Eric Dondero

    Holz, like I said, “zero prospect for chaning the LP platform” on foreign policy may be a negative from the LP’s perspective, cause they’ll inevitibly lose support, but it’s a very big positive from the perspective of Libertarian Republicans.

    Go to an RLC meeting in your area. Ask around; how many new RLC members are refugees from the Libertarian Party?

    Number One reason people leave the Libertarian Party and join the GOP, is over the LP’s stridency in pacifism/non-interventionism/isolationism.

    Don’t take my word for it. Ask any LPer turned RLCer.

    I’ll repeat. I won’t use specific names. But I talked to a shitload of delegates at the convention, mainly from the South, but also from New England states, a couple also from the Mid-West, and all of them told me they were “secretly supportive” of the RLC, and were friendly, and even active with their local RLC chapters, mainly because they disagreed with the LP’s stridency over foreign policy.

  19. Thomas L. Knapp

    Brian,

    You write:

    “Hancock repeatedly says that the only legitimate purpose of government is to protect individual rights, so even he is apparently a fan of the one Platform provision that the anarchist holdout remnant fixates on.)”

    “The anarchist holdout remnant” does not fixate on that platform provision, because that platform provision (“the only legitimate purpose of government is to protect individual rights”) does not exist.

    Here’s the platform provision that does exist and that “the anarchist holdout remnant” fixates on:

    “Government exists to protect the rights of every individual including life, liberty and property.”

    Do you see the difference?

    “[T]he only legitimate purpose of government is to protect individual rights” is a nice litmus test of whether or not a government is legitimate, and if any government in recorded history had ever come close to passing that test, the “anarchist holdout remnant” would be disarmed.

    “Government exists to protect the rights of every individual including life, liberty and property,” on the other hand, is a factual claim utterly unsupported by history or reality. It’s like having a platform plank that sets the value of pi at 3.2 or claims that the length of time from sunrise to sunset remains the same every day over the course of the year.

    Granted, anarchists are appalled by its inclusion in the platform, but at this point that feeling is really more a matter of being embarrassed for our minarchist friends who, whatever the error of their ways, should at least know better than to tape a “kick us, we’re idiots” sign on their own party’s back by supporting retention of language that any fourth-grader can easily identify as crazy talk.

  20. Eric Dondero

    Lose the “chists.”

    You’re either a froot loop fringe extremist Libertarian, or you’re a mainstream libertarian who actually wants to win elections.

    Min-archist is a silly made up word.

    The reason Anarchists like Knapp use it, is cause they don’t want to acknowlege mainstream libertarians. You’re either a semi-extremist – Minarchist, or an outright extremist in Knapp’s book. Moderate or mainstream libertarians are just not acknowledged.

  21. Thomas L. Knapp

    Eric,

    I acknowledge mainstream libertarians all the time.

    But what does that have to do with you? Birtherism, “convoys to Syria” fairy tales, etc. are about 90 degrees off-axis to the “mainstream” of anything.

  22. Robert Milnes

    The solution to the radicals being screwed by rightists in the LP is to leave en masse & join BTP. The solution to radicals being alienated from the LP & politics in general is to join BTP. BTP could very quickly be very viable. All it needs is @45 state ballot access or more to completely replace LP. Counterintuitively, this would not destroy the LP or split the libertarian vote. The radicals will then be free to nominate a fusion ticket & proceed to make a defacto 3 way race. That could be won by plurality. Those that would ave voted GOP anyway will.

  23. Brian Holtz

    Number of deaths on American soil in 2006-2009 caused by lightning: 155
    Number of deaths on American soil in 2006-2009 caused by “Islamic extremists”: 15

    Should we declare war on lightning, Dondero?

    I absolutely oppose watering down the LP’s position on adult substance use. You own your own body, period.

    Tom quotes the LP platform: “Government exists to protect the rights of every individual including life, liberty and property.”

    The LP platform is not a descriptive text, it’s a normative text. Your complaint would be no more valid than if the Platform said: All men are created equal, and are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, and among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. To secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

    (And no, Jefferson did not insist on unanimous consent of the governed, and was not advocating a right of personal secession.)

    I’ve never seen a “kick us, we’re idiots” sign on any copy of the DoI.

  24. LP Pragmatist

    Somebody needs to throw Brian Holtz a “bone” and make a comment on his story he posted yesterday. Not one comment– truly sad lol

  25. Ken Moellman

    Blah blah blah blah blah.

    I’m a self-dubbed blue collar libertarian. Leave me alone. All this arguing is stupid and pointless.

    If you want to go be played by the Republicans again, like in 1968, 1980 and 1994, good luck. Personally, I refuse to help build a machine that will be used against me 2 – 6 years later.

  26. Thomas L. Knapp

    “I’ve never seen a ‘kick us, we’re idiots’ sign on any copy of the DoI.”

    The aftermath of the American Revolution established beyond reasonable doubt the falsehood of the claim “To secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”

    At the time Jefferson wrote that, it was a novel idea worth testing.

    Twenty years after Jefferson wrote that, phrenology was a novel idea worth testing, too.

    Both ideas have long since been discredited.

  27. JT

    Tom: “Both ideas have long since been discredited.”

    You can argue that what the Declaration says is impossible (I’d disagree) because it hasn’t yet existed. But that doesn’t prove false the claim in the Declaration that the only just purpose of governments is to secure individual rights. That falsification would require philosophical argument, not just historical example.

  28. Jim Davidson

    What the Declaration of Independence says is the classical liberalism fallacy. It says that governments derive just powers from the consent of the governed, which might be true if any government every bothered to actually get consent from everyone it was governing. But in fact governments don’t give a shit whether you consent or not, and never have. Governments exercise power for the benefit of those who run the government.

    If withdrawing your consent mattered to the USA government, then they would be unhappy that about 100 million people who were qualified to vote, some of whom were registered to vote, did not vote in November 2008. But, of course, you IPR types don’t care about those people.

    If the USA government required the consent of even a majority of those governed, then the president could not become president with 22.8% of the population voting for him. Again, only 131 million voted in November 2008, out of about 308 million in the country at the time.

    The other aspect of the classical liberalism fallacy that the Declaration of Independence asserts but does not prove is that governments are instituted to protect life, liberty, and property, or the pursuit of happiness, or anything else. But that’s not what happens. Governments are instituted to separate the unwary from their property for the benefit of those who run the state.

    We have had over 300 years to explore the ramifications of the work of John Locke. If a government with the actual consent of all those governed, or a government that functioned entirely to protect the lives, liberty, and property of those governed were going to come into existence, it would have by now.

    It is long past time to give up on the centralisation mythos of the state. Withdraw your consent, reduce to the barest minimum the support that is dragged out of you, learn how to engage in private economic transactions both locally and globally, and leave the state to the jocks, cheerleaders, and other morons.

  29. Robert Milnes

    OK, third party losers. There is only one way to break up the dem/rep duopoly during relative peacetime & prosperity.-in times of war or economic crisis (depression) all bets are off. BOTH involve The Libertarian Vote(bloc). 1. The LP supports passively or actively the nationalists-in the USA that would be the Constitution Party.2. The LP supports passively or actively the progressives. As I’ve been saying, presently the rightists control the LP. They are not going to actively support the progressives. However if BTP became sufficiently viable, it could wokr with the progressives.The BTP being considered an extension of the LP.

  30. Thomas L. Knapp

    JT,

    You’re committing the same error as Holtz.

    He uses “just,” you use “legitimate.”

    Neither the LP platform nor the Declaration use any such term.

    If you want to argue in favor of the Declaration or the platform, argue on the basis of what they say rather than what they don’t say.

  31. Robert Milnes

    Needless to say I do not consider this to be a time of war. Iraq & Afghan. are more “police actions” than war. War has not been declared by Congress. & I DO include civil war as war. & I DO consider the USA to be a prime candidate for possible civil war. & it could get REALLY BAD. 1.Geographical, N v S with a split down the middle-the midwest splitting off the west coast from the NE. 2.Political-progressives/liberals/democrats v nationalists//conservatives/trepublicans. 3.Racial.

  32. NewFederalist

    Gosh, I only wish I was as smart as Milnes. Let’s see… add the Libertarian vote with the Green vote and toss in 20% besides just on account of because and voila! A winning formula. Golly gee, Batman… we can win! We can take over! We can rule the world! I gotta sign up today! Where is my pen…

  33. Brian Holtz

    Knapp: [Holtz] He uses “just,” you use “legitimate.” Neither the LP platform nor the Declaration use any such term.

    The DoI says: “to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed”.

    It remains obvious that these statements in the DoI and Platform are normative ones, not descriptive ones. You can disagree with the claims — heck, you can even speciously assert that the theory of a rights-protecting government is “discredited” — but to deny the normative nature of the claims is just to certify your inability to read political treatises.

    I nominate Ernest Hancock for PlatCom. He says that protecting individual rights is a legitimate function of government, and he says in effect that everyone who has ever voted has acknowledged the legitimacy of government. We need more anarchists like that!

  34. paulie Post author

    LP Pragmatist // Jun 5, 2010 at 1:57 pm

    Somebody needs to throw Brian Holtz a “bone” and make a comment on his story he posted yesterday. Not one comment– truly sad lol

    Actually, I posted it. I don’t think Brian was fishing for comments, I just wanted to provide as many accounts as I could find of the convention.

  35. NewFederalist

    Sorry Milnes… I don’t know what got into me. I apologize for poking fun at your PLAS idea. I guess one beer too many. I still think it won’t work but it is just mean spirited to make fun of it. I am sorry.

  36. Thomas L. Knapp

    Brian,

    If the word “legitimate” was inserted in the platform language we’re discussing, I’d have no problem with it.

    As is, it is a descriptive, not normative, statement, and the description is at variance with the known facts.

    My bad on the Declaration — I should have considered the entire sentence, not just the first clause.

    As far as what kinds of anarchists the LP needs, I’m afraid there’s not much I can do to help you attract the kind you want. I have, however, already begun the process of reducing the number of the kind you don’t want, by one.

  37. Thomas M. Sipos

    Dondero: “Hmmm? Please explain how it is that someone can be a NeoCon and be Pro-Choice on abortion and Pro-Marijuana Legalization?”

    You are dishonest. I’ve already answered this query of yours, several times, on IPR. Yet you keep ignoring my evidence (Kristol’s book) and go on pretending that neoconservatism is social conservatism.

    Neocon has nothing to do with social conservatism.

    The term “neoconservative” was coined by self-described neoconservative Irving Kirstol in his 1983 book, Reflections of a Neoconservative:
    http://www.amazon.com/Reflections-Neoconservative-Looking-Back-Ahead/dp/0465068723/ref=tmm_hrd_title_0

    Neoconservative means support for an aggressive, interventionist, militarist foreign policy.

    Several times, I’ve replied to Dondero by posting info on Kristol’s book. Dondero always fails to address Kristol’s book.

    And then months later, Dondero will resurface with his old talking points, feigning ignorance over Kristol’s book, and once again falsely equating neoconservatism with social conservatism.

  38. paulie Post author

    Thomas @ 44, not exactly. See the wikipedia entry http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism


    Michael Harrington, a democratic socialist, coined the current sense of the term neoconservative in a 1973 Dissent magazine article concerning welfare policy

    …..

    Initially, the neoconservatives were less concerned with foreign policy than with domestic policy. Irving Kristol’s journal, The Public Interest, focused on ways that government planning in the liberal state had produced unintended harmful consequences. Norman Podhoretz’s magazine Commentary, formerly a journal of the liberal left, had more of a cultural focus, criticizing excesses in the movements for black equality and women’s rights, and in the academic left.Through the 1950s and early 1960s the future neoconservatives had been socialists or liberals strongly supportive of the American Civil Rights Movement, integration, and Martin Luther King, Jr..

    ….

    Neoconservatives came to dislike the counterculture of the 1960s baby boomers, and what they saw as anti-Americanism in the non-interventionism of the movement against the Vietnam War.

    As the policies of the New Left pushed these intellectuals farther to the right, they moved toward a more aggressive militarism, while becoming disillusioned with President Lyndon B. Johnson’s Great Society domestic programs. Academics in these circles, many still Democrats, rejected the Democratic Party’s foreign policy in the 1970s, especially after the nomination of anti-war candidate George McGovern for president in 1972. The influential 1970 bestseller The Real Majority by future television commentator and neoconservative Ben Wattenberg expressed that the “real majority” of the electorate supported economic liberalism but social conservatism, and warned Democrats it could be disastrous to take liberal stances on certain social and crime issues.

    Many supported Democratic Senator Henry M. “Scoop” Jackson, derisively known as the Senator from Boeing, during his 1972 and 1976 campaigns for president. Among those who worked for Jackson were future neoconservatives Paul Wolfowitz, Doug Feith and Richard Perle. In the late 1970s neoconservative support moved to Ronald Reagan and the Republicans, who promised to confront Soviet expansionism.

    ……

    In the early 1970s, democratic socialist Michael Harrington used the term in its modern meaning. He characterized neoconservatives as former leftists – whom he derided as “socialists for Nixon” – who had moved significantly to the right. These people tended to remain supporters of social democracy, but distinguished themselves by allying with the Nixon administration over foreign policy, especially by their support for the Vietnam War and opposition to the Soviet Union. They still supported the welfare state, but not necessarily in its contemporary form.

    …..

    In January 2009, at the close of President George W. Bush’s second term in office, Jonathan Clarke, a senior fellow at the Carnegie Council for Ethics in International Affairs, proposed the following as the “main characteristics of neoconservatism”:

    * “a tendency to see the world in binary good/evil terms
    * low tolerance for diplomacy
    * readiness to use military force
    * emphasis on US unilateral action
    * disdain for multilateral organizations
    * focus on the Middle East
    * an us versus them mentality”.

    ….

    The neoconservatives, arising from the anti-Stalinist left of the 1950s, opposed the anti-capitalism of the New Left of the 1960s. They broke from the liberal consensus of the early post-World War II years in foreign policy, and opposed Détente with the Soviet Union in the late 1960s and 1970s.

    …..

    The movement began to focus on such foreign issues in the mid-1970s. However, it first crystallized in the late 1960s as an effort to combat the radical cultural changes taking place within the United States. Irving Kristol wrote: “If there is any one thing that neoconservatives are unanimous about, it is their dislike of the counterculture.” Norman Podhoretz agreed: “Revulsion against the counterculture accounted for more converts to neoconservatism than any other single factor.” Ira Chernus argues that the deepest root of the neoconservative movement is its fear that the counterculture would undermine the authority of traditional values and moral norms. Because neoconservatives believe that human nature is innately selfish, they believe that a society with no commonly accepted values based on religion or ancient tradition will end up in a war of all against all. They also believe that the most important social value is strength, especially the strength to control natural impulses. The only alternative, they assume, is weakness that will let impulses run riot and lead to social chaos.

    According to Peter Steinfels, a historian of the movement, the neoconservatives’ “emphasis on foreign affairs emerged after the New Left and the counterculture had dissolved as convincing foils for neoconservatism… The essential source of their anxiety is not military or geopolitical or to be found overseas at all; it is domestic and cultural and ideological.”

    ….

    While they have often ignored ideological differences in alliance against those to their left, neoconservatives differ from paleoconservatives. In particular, they disagree with nativism, protectionism, and non-interventionism in foreign policy, ideologies that are rooted in American history, but which have fallen out of the mainstream U.S. politics after World War II. Compared with traditionalist conservatism and libertarianism, which may be non-interventionist, neoconservatism emphasizes defense capability, challenging regimes hostile to the values and interests of the United States

    ….

    Unlike most schools of conservative thought, neoconservatives tend to be secular though some believe, as Strauss did, in religion but not god. They think it’s good for the masses and promotes morality.

  39. paulie Post author

    If Government would stay out of people inventions, maybe we wouldn’t have needed oil a long time ago and all this could have been avoid(ed). The lord above gives us nature and beauty and it is being destroyed.

    For once we agree :-)

  40. Eric Dondero

    Umm, okay Sipos, I get it then. So economic issues don’t matter. Social liberty issues don’t matter. The only thing that matters in the political lexicon when labeling someone is foreign policy.

    And on that score, the old labels of Reagan conservative, or Defense conservative, or Pro-Military, or Strong on Defense are out the window ‘eh? Everyone who was previously labeled any of those is now heretofore to be known as a “NeoCon.”

    Thanks for clearing that up for me.

  41. Brian Holtz

    Tom @43, I’d have no problem with adding the word “legitimate” to that sentence.

    The only kind of anarchists I wouldn’t invite into the LP are the kind who think that the LP should treat minarchism as inferior to anarchism. And as for the ones who are already here, I’d rather help them acquire more intellectual tolerance/self-confidence than invite them to leave.

  42. paulie Post author

    Umm, okay Sipos, I get it then. So economic issues don’t matter. Social liberty issues don’t matter. The only thing that matters in the political lexicon when labeling someone is foreign policy.

    And on that score, the old labels of Reagan conservative, or Defense conservative, or Pro-Military, or Strong on Defense are out the window ‘eh? Everyone who was previously labeled any of those is now heretofore to be known as a “NeoCon.”

    Thanks for clearing that up for me.

    No different than your definition of true libertarian:

    http://www.smallgov.org/?p=355#comment-4549

    # Eric Dondero Says:
    September 9th, 2006 at 9:44 pm

    Same feeling many of us have with Joe Lieberman.

    He’s mostly wrong on a whole slew of social and economic matters. But he is RIGHT ON on the War in Iraq and Afghanistan.

    That’s why True libertarians support him.

  43. Thomas L. Knapp

    Bob,

    None of the above.

    I’ve been on track to exit this particular kind of politics for some time now.

    I dropped my presidential campaign months ago.

    This is the first election year since 1996 that neither Tamara nor myself will appear on a ballot for public office.

    I resigned my position on the Missouri LP’s executive committee two months ago.

    My term as LP county chair is up in August and I won’t be seeking another.

    A couple of people asked me to seek election to the LP’s Judicial Committee. Politely declined.

    I was nominated for the BTP national committee. Politely declined.

    While I had some interest in, and put some effort into achieving, certain outcomes at the national convention, my main reason for attending was to visit with friends whom I usually see at most every other year.

    I’m not going away mad, but I’m going away, mostly anyway, and for awhile at least.

    I have no interest in insulting those who remain in the LP by claiming that my particular decision constitutes some kind of positive “evolution” which they’ve yet to achieve, or that I’m moving on to “better things” — but moving on I am, at least for the moment.

  44. Eric Dondero

    Paulie, you say NeoConservatives were/are opposed to the “counter-culture.” Presumably, by that you mean Rock music, the drug culture, Marijuana, Gays, Swingers, Prostitutes, Teen rebellion, Bikers, Punk Rockers, and such.

    You agree with that, right?

    So then, what do you call someone who is one, some of those things, or all of those things, yet is hardcore Pro-Military and Pro-Defense?

    What do you call Gay Patriot for instance, a well-known blogger, who is stridently Pro-Military, but a flamer homosexual?

    What do you call people who are anti-Islamo-Fascist precisely because they are Civil libertarians?

  45. Eric Dondero

    Wouldn’t the views of anti-Islamo-Fascists who are counter-culturalists, and alternative lifestyles advocates clash severely with the religious-right oriented NeoCons?

  46. JT

    Tom: “JT, You’re committing the same error as Holtz. He uses “just,” you use “legitimate.” Neither the LP platform nor the Declaration use any such term. If you want to argue in favor of the Declaration or the platform, argue on the basis of what they say rather than what they don’t say.”

    You already said @ 43 that you didn’t consider the whole sentence you were referring to, but I second what Holtz said @ 40. And I didn’t even use the term “legitimate” @ 31; I used the term “just” as the Declaration does. If you’re going to argue against someone’s point, argue on the basis of what he says rather than what he doesn’t say.

  47. Eric Dondero

    Hey Paulie, did I call Lieberman a “libertarian”? No. I said he was someone libertarians could support, particularly in far, far, far left Connecticut, where anyone even remotely pro-freedom in any regard whatsoever, could be someone a libertarian could support.

    BTW, I petitioned in 2006 for Lieberman in Connecticut. You would be shocked at the number of self-described “Libertarian Party members” I ran into who said they were supporting Lieberman.

  48. paulie Post author

    @ 53 Not so severely, since both are currently mainly focused on foreign policy.

    The religious right is split between those who are foreign policy hawks and those who are anti-interventionist. Both groups tend to oppose allowing large numbers of immigrants in the country.

  49. Eric Dondero

    Paulie, I have no problem with liberventionist or neolibertarian. But you’re avoiding the question.

    PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE give me a direct answer.

    You and Sipos assert that anyone who is strong on the Military is a “NeoCon.” Alright then. How do you lump in Pat Robertson, Bill Bennett, Gary Bauer, Fred Barnes, George Will, and other NeoCons in the same category as Alternative Lifestyle advocates – whether Gay, Pot Smokers, Swingers, Pro-Choicers, Bikers, Punk Rockers, ect… – who are fiercely Pro-Defense and Pro-Military PRECISELY because they fear Sharia Law and the impact that would place on their personal lifestyles?

  50. Eric Dondero

    Personal note to Paulie…

    I’m sorry that for whatever reason we did not get to meet in St. Louis. I had an enjoyable evening chatting with your friend Andy about petitioning stuff. He’s very well-versed on the petitioning industry. I may hate you on policy views, but that shouldn’t stop us from changing notes on occasion on business issues re: petitioning opportunities. My email is above. You and Andy should not hesitate to contact me any time.

  51. paulie Post author

    Hey Paulie, did I call Lieberman a “libertarian”? No.

    I never said you did. However, from your quote (and many others I’ve seen but not cataloged) it is clear that you believe that foreign policy trumps all other issues.

    In other words, you (and those whom you consider true libertarians) will more readily make common cause with those with whom you agree on foreign policy but disagree on domestic and social issues (for example Joe Lieberman) than you would with someone with whom you disagree on foreign policy but largely agree on social and economic issues (most of us here).

  52. paulie Post author

    You and Sipos assert that anyone who is strong on the Military is a “NeoCon.”

    No, I don’t. #46 was a reply to Sipos, disputing that characterization.

    How do you lump in Pat Robertson, Bill Bennett, Gary Bauer, Fred Barnes, George Will, and other NeoCons in the same category as Alternative Lifestyle advocates – whether Gay, Pot Smokers, Swingers, Pro-Choicers, Bikers, Punk Rockers, ect… – who are fiercely Pro-Defense and Pro-Military PRECISELY because they fear Sharia Law and the impact that would place on their personal lifestyles?

    Refer to the wikipedia entry; neither group is precisely the same as the neocons, although they all agree on the issue set that neocons and neolibertarians are currently most focused on.

    As for religious rightists such as Robertson and Bauer, they remain heavily focused on social issues, I agree. The degree to which they would cooperate with liberventionists is limited – they can work together on foreign policy issues, but not social issues. It’s all a matter of emphasis.

    Still not sure how you campaigning against gay marriage by telling people that marriage equality would force churches to hold gay weddings fits in to all this, though.

  53. Eric Dondero

    This is like pulling teeth. Paulie, you just refuse to answer the question don’t you.

    Again, I’ll scream it at you through the screen:

    HOW DO YOU DESCRIBE SOMEONE WHO IS COUNTER CULTURE OR ALTERNATIVE LIFESTYLE, YET IS FIERCELY PRO-MILITARY AND ANTI-ISLAMO-FASCIST?

    Here’s a few examples: the very so-sexy Atlas Shrug blogger Pamela Geller who flaunts her sexuality and is the fiercest opponent of Radical Islam in the blogosphere; the blogger Gay Patriot, Bruce Bawer former NY Times reporter who is Gay yet ademently opposed to Islam in Europe, Stacy McCain, et.al.

  54. Eric Dondero

    So then Paulie, are you acknowledging that someone can be Pro-Defense and not a “NeoCon”? That’s how I read your latest post.

    You do acknowledge Reagan Conservatives, Pro-Defensers, Pro-Military voters, and such, right?

    You do acknowledge that not everyone who is Pro-Military is a “NeoCon” right?

  55. Eric Dondero

    I want to nail this down Paulie. You are disagreeing with Sipos, right?

    You do acknowledge that someone can be Pro-Military and Pro-Alternative Lifestyles, and thus not a NeoCon, right?

  56. paulie Post author

    Why, yes. I wouldn’t call it pro-”defense,” but otherwise, all true. Neocons are a more specific group; again, see wikipedia entry.

  57. Eric Dondero

    You do know Military guys are the biggest whorin’, cussing, drinking, tattoo-wearing, porn watching, wife-swapping, crazy-ass mother fuckers around, right?

    You cannot possibly lump Military guys, who are fiercely pro-interventionist and pro-military, in the same category as “NeoCons,” most of whom never even served in the military.

  58. paulie Post author

    Eric @ 65

    Yes, that is correct. How many more repetitions do you require? Just re-read 46. The answers lie therein.

  59. paulie Post author

    Military guys, who are fiercely pro-interventionist and pro-military,

    Pro-interventionist and pro-military are two very different things. Lots of military people and military families I have talked to are some of the strongest anti-interventionists I know. I think that is why Ron Paul led in contributions from active and retired military personnel.

  60. Eric Dondero

    THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU PAULIE CANOLLI.

    You are an honest man. I will always say henceforth that even though I disagree with Paulie Canolli, he’s a descent guy, and is honest in his political beliefs.

    It took fuckin’ forever for you to concede the point. But I respect that you did in the end.

    I can’t help thinking I put you in a corner, and you really had no choice. But no bother. In the end you conceded and by your own words admitted that someone can be Pro-Defense and not a NeoCon.

    This thread will be referred to for years to come. I’ve bookmarked it. And I will keep it for eternity.

    THANK YOU AGAIN.

  61. Eric Dondero

    For those following this thread, here is the crucial exchange, where Paulie finally admits NeoCon and Pro-Military is not one in the same. Sipos will no doubt be crying in his beer over this.

    Eric Dondero // Jun 5, 2010 at 9:17 pm

    I want to nail this down Paulie. You are disagreeing with Sipos, right?

    You do acknowledge that someone can be Pro-Military and Pro-Alternative Lifestyles, and thus not a NeoCon, right?
    66 paulie // Jun 5, 2010 at 9:18 pm

    Why, yes. I wouldn’t call it pro-”defense,” but otherwise, all true. Neocons are a more specific group; again, see wikipedia entry.

  62. paulie Post author

    I “conceded” a point I started out making? LOL.

    Additionally, by my words, pro-intervention =/= pro-defense. I hope that is clear.

    And, yes, I agree with ED that not all pro-interventionists are “neocons.”

    BTW, I don’t usually use “cannoli” anymore. Too many people thought it was my real name.

    Nowadays it is just Paulie. Like some other celebrities, I think one name is sufficient :-P

  63. paulie Post author

    Have one on me. I’ll buy.

    Thanks. I drink Stouts, Porters, Barleywines, Strong Ales, and the occasional Mead.

  64. Kooky

    I’m a little late to this party, but Dondero just says the most ridiculous things.

    Way up @ 19:

    Ft Hood shootings: classic false flag

    Christmas (underwear ) bomber: classic false flag

    And @71: Miller Lite beer? For wimps.

  65. Thomas M. Sipos

    Dondero: “How do you lump in Pat Robertson, Bill Bennett, Gary Bauer, Fred Barnes, George Will, and other NeoCons in the same category as Alternative Lifestyle advocates – whether Gay, Pot Smokers, Swingers, Pro-Choicers, Bikers, Punk Rockers, ect… – who are fiercely Pro-Defense and Pro-Military”

    Both groups are neocons. The former are social conservative neocons. The latter are non-social conservative neocons.

    It’s their support of imperialism/interventionism that makes them neocons. Their support or opposition to social conservatism is irrelevent. That’s a separate issue entirely.

    “Pro-defense” is often a code word for interventionism/imperialism.

    I don’t know what “pro-military” means. Do you mean giving the Pentagon however much money it wants? Or that Congress should cede foreign policy decisions to the Pentagon? Or that the military, unlike other government agencies, is blessed with superior wisdom, morals, and patriotism?

    “PRECISELY because they fear Sharia Law”

    Anyone who “fears” Sharia law being imposed on the U.S. as a serious likelihood is beyond neocon — they’re insane.

    And unlike you, Dondero, I don’t think too many people are “fiercely pro-military” because they fear that otherwise they may lose their access to prostitutes. I don’t think that’s an issue in most people’s daily decision-making.

  66. A Odd Punk Rook

    ED@58:
    “…who are fiercely Pro-Defense and Pro-Military PRECISELY because they fear Sharia Law and the impact that would place on their personal lifestyles?”

    I must not fear.
    Fear is the mind-killer.
    Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration.
    I will face my fear.
    I will permit it to pass over me and through me.
    And when it has gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path.
    Where the fear has gone there will be nothing.
    Only I will remain.

  67. Eric Dondero

    So then Sipos, you Mr. Political Science Doctorate degree holder, are summarily eliminating the terms “Reagan Conservative,” and “Pro-Military,” and “Defense Conservative,” and “Reaganite,” and “Goldwater Conservative,” and “Strong on Defense,” and “Pro-Defense Libertarian,” and “Ayn Randian,” and “Defense Conservative,” and “Patriot,” from the political lexicon. All these prior terms are to be replaced by the term “NeoCon,” henceforth, am I correct?

    And what praytell, gives you that authority to pronounce all these terms defunct in favor of NeoConservative?

    What happens if someone balks at your suggestion, and refuses to be called NeoCon, and continues to call themselves a Reaganite, or Pro-Defenser? Will you Sir, use that Doctorate in Poli Sci degree and denounce them as “heretics”?

  68. Eric Dondero

    Sipos, if you eliminate all these Pro-Defense terms, and lump all of us who are Pro-Military under the NeoCon umbrella, can we do the same for you all, and lump all of you who are Anti-Military under the “Liberal” or “Socialist” label?

    Fair’s fair.

  69. Thomas M. Sipos

    Dondero: “What happens if someone balks at your suggestion, and refuses to be called “

    Did I say that anything would “happen”?

    You sound so hysterical. As if you have a guilty conscience.

    Dondero: “if you eliminate all these Pro-Defense terms, and lump all of us who are Pro-Military under the NeoCon umbrella, can we do the same for you all, and lump all of you…etc.”

    I thought you already lumped all peaceniks under the same pejorative labels (e.g., America haters, Islamo-fascist lovers, etc.).

    Your labels are far worse than Neocon, so I don’t see that you have any grounds for complaint.

    However, I don’t really care what you call peaceniks, since you’re a joke. Nobody takes you seriously.

    BTW, I still have no idea what you mean by “pro-military” or “anti-military.” I wasn’t being coy. I really don’t know what you mean by those terms.

    I do know that some phony “conservatives” and phony “libertarians” have an almost orgasmic- religious fetish for flags and uniforms. They see the military not as just another imperfect government bureaucracy, but as a Sacred Order, All-Pure and Holy, whose actions must Never Be Questioned, and which must be given as many tax dollars as it deems necessary.

    Is that what you mean by “pro-military”? A Sacred Order above question, above the law, and above the Constitution?

  70. paulie Post author

    Dondero: “How do you lump in Pat Robertson, Bill Bennett, Gary Bauer, Fred Barnes, George Will, and other NeoCons in the same category as Alternative Lifestyle advocates – whether Gay, Pot Smokers, Swingers, Pro-Choicers, Bikers, Punk Rockers, ect… – who are fiercely Pro-Defense and Pro-Military”

    Sipos: Both groups are neocons. The former are social conservative neocons. The latter are non-social conservative neocons.

    Paulie: Neither are neocons. Of the former group, Will, Bennett and Barnes are neocons or neocon-leaning; Robertson and Bauer are not. See wikipedia definition above.

    Sipos: It’s their support of imperialism/interventionism that makes them neocons. Their support or opposition to social conservatism is irrelevent. That’s a separate issue entirely.

    Paulie: While an aggressive/expansive foreign policy is what neocons are best known for in recent years, it is not accurate to say that this is the full definition of neocon. Again, see wikipedia, and follow the cited sources in the article if you are so inclined.

    Sipos: I don’t know what “pro-military” means. Do you mean giving the Pentagon however much money it wants? Or that Congress should cede foreign policy decisions to the Pentagon? Or that the military, unlike other government agencies, is blessed with superior wisdom, morals, and patriotism?

    Paulie: Good point.

    Sipos: Anyone who “fears” Sharia law being imposed on the U.S. as a serious likelihood is beyond neocon — they’re insane.

    Paulie: True. Since Muslims are what, 2-3% of the US population? – How would that even work?

    Sipos: And unlike you, Dondero, I don’t think too many people are “fiercely pro-military” because they fear that otherwise they may lose their access to prostitutes. I don’t think that’s an issue in most people’s daily decision-making.

    Paulie: Prostitution thrives where there is heavy social tendency towards sexual repression. “Good girls don’t….” Interesting articles:

    http://freestudents.blogspot.com/2008/06/kinkiest-towns-in-america-they-love.html

    http://freestudents.blogspot.com/2008/11/pubic-wars-erotophobia-and-american.html

  71. paulie Post author

    if you eliminate all these Pro-Defense terms, and lump all of us who are Pro-Military under the NeoCon umbrella, can we do the same for you all, and lump all of you who are Anti-Military under the “Liberal” or “Socialist” label?

    Why would opposing high levels of government spending and an expansive view of a certain class of government programs be socialist? What definition of socialism are you using?

  72. paulie Post author

    I do know that some phony “conservatives” and phony “libertarians” have an almost orgasmic- religious fetish for flags and uniforms. They see the military not as just another imperfect government bureaucracy, but as a Sacred Order, All-Pure and Holy, whose actions must Never Be Questioned, and which must be given as many tax dollars as it deems necessary.

    Is that what you mean by “pro-military”? A Sacred Order above question, above the law and above the Constitution?

    That sounds about right. And, curiously, those who favor such big spending are defined as pro-liberty while those who want to cut the costs are called socialists. Truly bizarre.

  73. Week End Down Memory Lane......... Don Lake

    Flag waving and distinctive uniforms were very important at one time. The bright red British coats with white ‘cross hairs’ straps were a wonderful target for buck skinned Colonials! The bright back ground and crosses on the Union Jack were wonderful land marks for Revolutionary cannons!

    So Crazy King George (III) and his military were ‘bonkers’ ????? Well, no. It was much more important for them to know whom their troops are than to worry ’bout enemy fire.

    In a time B4 smoke less gun powder, the battle field quickly became hazy with smoke. Brave lads and bold commanders were often rewarded with ‘friendly fire’ in such a foggy environment.

    I am told that the ‘old fashion’ flag waving of ‘modern’ America came during such a smoky epoch. And that is my first response to flags and uniforms: old fashioned!

  74. Jay

    I was very satisfied to see our members take a hard line against weakening the platform as well.

    We need to stop the libertarian philosophy as being described as either left or right. We are neither. We don’t fit into left or the right.

    Sure we may reflect the right of Barry Goldwater, or the left of the 1960′s but the right and left have both abandoned their former principles. The right has their nose up our a**es butting into our private lives and advocating a endless war while the left claims ownership to the fruits of our labor. We should not associate with either group.

  75. LibertarianGirl

    also , can we be clear that anti-war does not mean anti -military or anti-defense. it means I dont like 1 and a half million innocent people dying for nothing , and I dont like out soldiers lives being wasted on an unjust war based on lies

  76. Brian Holtz

    a hard line against weakening the platform as well

    I would have preferred a slightly harder line.

    I didn’t like the change from “replacing Social Security” to “phase out/transition”. I personally favor a phased replacement, but I’d let our candidates describe what “replacing” means to them.

    I also didn’t like qualifying our opposition to legal tender laws by saying we only oppose “unconstitutional” ones. The Platform doesn’t need to endorse an eighteenth-century document’s fixation on Au and Ag as elements that cannot be refused in settling debts. Debts and penalties should be settled according to the contracts and laws that respectively specify them.

    But yes, the Convention firmly defended the Platform against the only substantive challenges to it:

    1) a doomed floor motion to revert to the 2000 platform,

    2) the PlatCom’s flawed proposal to rewrite the 1.0 Personal Liberty plank,

    3) the PlatCom’s flawed proposal to fix the 3.3 “peace with the world and its defense” language, and

    4) the PlatCom’s attempt to yank the “However” bandaid off of the 3.4 immigration language.

    The lesson of St. Louis is clear: the LP is happy with its Platform, and attempts to improve it need to be extremely well thought-out.

  77. paulie Post author

    LibertarianGirl // Jun 8, 2010 at 5:34 pm

    ““libertarians” have an almost orgasmic- religious fetish for flags”

    me_I know I have a screaming orgasm at the sight of a Gadsden–

    Is it the snake?

Leave a Reply