Ron Paul redefines the term “Losertarian”. For Lew Rockwell, he wrote the following:
“…Our foreign policy was in the spotlight last week, which is exactly where it should be. Almost two years ago many voters elected someone they thought would lead us to a more peaceful, rational co-existence with other countries. However, while attention has been focused on the administration’s disastrous economic policies, its equally disastrous foreign policies have exacerbated our problems overseas. Especially in times of economic crisis, we cannot afford to ignore costly foreign policy mistakes. That’s why it is important that U.S. foreign policy receive some much-needed attention in the media, as it did last week with the leaked documents scandal.
Many are saying that the WikiLeaks documents tell us nothing new. In some ways this is true. Most Americans knew that we have been fighting losing battles. These documents show just how bad it really is. The revelation that Pakistani intelligence is assisting the people we are bombing in Afghanistan shows the quality of friends we are making with our foreign policy. This kind of thing supports points that Rep. Dennis Kucinich and I tried to make on the House floor last week with a privileged resolution that would have directed the administration to remove troops from Pakistan pursuant to the War Powers Resolution….”
Brick Lindsey of the Cato Institute wrote the following:
“…In any event, conservatism in its current incarnation looks like a political dead end. …Let’s look in particular at the Tea Party movement, whose sudden rise is what has sparked all the talk of a fusionist revival. In April The New York Times published a detailed survey of Tea Party supporters, and the results are telling. First, this movement is definitely a right-wing phenomenon. Of those polled, 73 percent said they are somewhat or very conservative, 54 percent called themselves Republicans (compared to only 5 percent who confessed being Democrats), and 66 percent said they always or usually vote for the GOP candidate. When asked to give their opinions of various public figures, they gave favorable/unfavorable splits of 59/6 for Glenn Beck and 66/12 for Sarah Palin (though a plurality said the latter would not be an effective president). And in the single most depressing result of the whole poll, 57 percent of Tea Party supporters expressed a favorable opinion of the big-government president George W. Bush — as compared to Americans overall, 58 percent of whom gave Bush an unfavorable rating.”
If this is true, why are Tea Partiers so anti-GOP?
Something is very, very wrong here.
We are in the middle of a war between Libertarians and Conservatives. It is a nasty war, that could serious undermine any potential GOP victory. At the bottom of the post there is a list of Republican Principles.
Why then, is a Cato Institute think-tanker going after the talking heads of the far right, when they are being forced to worship at the feet of Ron Paul Bot Losertarians.
“...Now, however, the discipline of having to fight intellectual battles on the opponent’s turf is long gone. Conservatism has turned inward, like the dog in the joke, because it can. The result is what Reason Contributing Editor Julian Sanchez has called the movement’s “epistemic closure.” The quality of the right’s intellectual leadership — the people who set the agenda, who define what “true” conservatism means at any given time — has consequently suffered a precipitous decline. What counts today isn’t engaging the other side with reasoned arguments; it’s building a rabid fan base by demonizing the other side and stoking the audience’s collective sense of outrage and victimization. And that’s a job best performed not by serious thinkers but by hacks and hucksters. Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, Mark Levin, Joseph Farah, Ann Coulter, Michelle Malkin: they adorn the cathedral of conservatism like so many gargoyles.
Yes, there are still many bright and inquisitive minds on the right, but they are not the movement’s stars and they don’t call the shots. On the contrary, if they stray too far in challenging the conservative id, they find themselves cast out and castigated as heretics and RINOs (Republicans In Name Only). Bruce Bartlett and David Frum (who are friends of mine) are only two of the more prominent victims of that intolerant groupthink; both were sacked by conservative think tanks shortly after loudly expressing heterodox opinions….”
In other words, the “brain-trust” of the libertarian movement looks down on conservatives, making fun of them, but is not above using them. The far right is being manipulated. This is the first time regular Pink Flamingo readers will find me asking a sympathetic question about Tea Party “patriots”. Why are they allowing themselves to be manipulated by the libertarians?
If nothing else, those two above paragraphs prove how morally reprehensible libertarians actually are.
Something strange is going on here. The conservative philosophy of Ronald Reagan, William F. Buckley and George W. Bush is being rejected – by conservatives. It is a philosophy based on Judeo-Christian ethics. While this version of conservative was based on Republican Principles, it also included the “my brother’s keeper” philosophy. It stresses individual responsibility, but takes into account the fact that we do have ethical responsibilities.
The Reagan-Buckley Conservative Philosophy is one of morality, decency, and honor. It took into account that we were all individuals, unique, with our own individual thoughts. Ronald Reagan said that anyone who agreed with him 80% of the time was his political friend. He even campaigned for Republicans who agreed with him only 70% of the time. He knew the value and the maturity of compromise.
Today though, the libertarian requirement is absolute political purity and conformity to thought. Based upon Ayn Rand’s atheism and abject lack of morality, ethics, and honor, there is no room for individuality, which is quite ironic. Ayn Rand was individual to the point where she believed a person should go after what they wanted, no matter what. She also believed in personal gratification to the point where she thought nothing of requiring the object of her desire to be unfaithful to a spouse, but she required absolute fidelity.
Personal honor was nothing. All that mattered was selfish gratification and ambition.
These philosophies are a polar opposite to the conservative philosophy of Reagan and Buckley. Their political thought process was based on ethics. It was based on honor, decency, and the recognition that there was something greater than ourselves.
Do you want proof that libertarians do not give a damn about honor, decency or morality – only getting their way? Please, picture this, and then, you may be sick. On Wednesday, The Pink Flamingo exposed Hunter Wallace as a neo-Nazi. What is this
This is the same Hunter Wallace, who wrote:
Do you remember how conservatives have declared, over and over, that there WILL NEVER AGAIN be a repeat of the Vietnam debacle? There was a time when being conservative stood for national security, military power, and the ability to use it. Now, though, evidently there is something wrong with a Republican who does. Evidently, according to the libertarian mind-set, they are spending too much money.
Once upon a time Republicans stood for national security. Evidently the “conservative” thing now is to cut and run.
How the world has changed.
Maybe conservatives have changed. Maybe we’re not really dealing with real conservatives but Ron Paul Bot losertarians like Jack Hunter.
Once upon a time NO conservative would consider what Hunter is considering. In fact, people like Hunter would be considered LIBERALS. They would never, never ever be considered conservative. Now though, they pretend to be conservative in order to lie about real conservatives and corrupt the memory of Reagan. Anyone who dares cross them is considered a RINO.
Once upon a time, NO Reagan conservative in their right mind would consider the following:
“…Was GOP Congressman Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) making an “unholy alliance” with Democrats recently when he voted against funding the war in Afghanistan, or as the Washington Post reported: “On the eve of the vote, Chaffetz called families of the three men from his district who have died in Afghanistan since he was elected and told them he was considering opposing the funding. ‘This was one of the toughest votes I’ve had in Congress,’ Chaffetz said. ‘So I asked their opinion. And to a T, they all agreed with me.’ So Chaffetz joined a tiny bloc in Congress: Republicans opposed to the Afghan war.”
The Washington Post also reported on another member of that bloc, Congressman Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA), who said of his vote, “I can state emphatically that if we continue our present strategy in Afghanistan, we will not succeed, and America will eventually be weakened by loss of lives and the expenditures of hundreds of billions of dollars,” Rohrabacher’s reasoning reflects basic common sense.
And this is something Graham fears is becoming more common. Says Graham of such Republicans, “The way to stop (GOP dissent on war) is you remind Republicans the consequences of losing in Afghanistan are not to Obama, but to the nation… And don’t go down that road trying to make this Obama’s war.” So, Mr. Graham, in the 2008 election, was it not George W. Bush’s “war on terror” that “kept us safe” or did that silly campaign rhetoric rightfully belong to Obama and his party too? I don’t remember Lindsey or his pal John McCain saying any such thing. The war in Iraq was unquestionably “Bush’s war.” Now, Afghanistan has become Obama’s….”
The strange part of this is you hear no corporate condemnation of Dana Rohrabacher from the same Ron Paul Bot, Glenn Beck watching, John Birch swilling Tea Party types – or losertarians. But – they will do anything to damn Lindsey. Go figure… then again, being anti-war is a plus for losertarians. Just read the American Thinker column by LIBERTARIAN Thomas Snodgrass.
More and more libertarian losertarian “Fake Conservatives” are lying about their conservative values, when they are no more conservative than their little tin god, Ron Paul. We Republicans have always stood tall on the following:
I am a Republican because:
I believe the strength of our nation lies with the individual and that each person’s dignity, freedom, ability and responsibility must be honored.
I believe in equal rights, equal justice and equal opportunity for all, regardless of race, creed, sex, age or disability.
I believe that free enterprise and the encouragement of individual initiative have brought this nation opportunity, economic growth and prosperity.
I believe government must practice fiscal responsibility and allow individuals to keep more of the money they earn.
I believe the proper role of government is to provide for the people only those critical functions that cannot be performed by individuals or private organizations and that the best government is that which governs least.
I believe the most effective, responsible and responsive government is government closest to the people.
I believe Americans must retain the principles that have made us strong while developing new and innovative ideas to meet the challenges of changing times.
I believe Americans value and should preserve our national strength and pride while working to extend peace, freedom and human rights throughout the world.
Finally, I believe the Republican Party is the best vehicle for translating these ideals into positive and successful principles of government.