Fresh off the heels of my post about the generational gap within the paleo movement on matters of race, comes the latest race obsessed nonsense from the folks at VDare. This time the issue is the alleged sellout of paleolibertarianism, by lewrockwell.com and the Murray Rothbard inspired, free market fundamentalists associated with the Austrian School of economics. While I am not a partisan of the Rothbardians, it does strike me that they are the saner of the two groupings, and they certainly have their priorities in order. They also understand tactical alliances, something that flies right over the head of the VDare crowd all to often.
Generally speaking I am a fan of the VDare website, particularly its focused work on immigration. While I don't consider myself a restrictionist, I do think immigration is one of the major problems facing the nation, and lefties who pretend that the tide of illegals sweeping onto our shores is not an issue worthy of thought ought to quit pretending they care about things like the environment, urban sprawl, fair wages, or the autocratic status of the third world hellholes these folks are fleeing from. That said, VDare's obsession with what it calls the "National Question", is for the most part ideologically driven nonsense, and postings like the one offered up by "Arthur Pendleton" (most likely a pseudonym) do nothing to advance the cause of decentralized government, personal liberty, or community empowerment.
The bulk of the material offered as proof of a paleolibertarian surrender to pc platitudes revolves around two primary issues, writings posted by Justin Raimondo of antiwar.com fame, and some things that were printed and later removed from the lewrockwell.com website. Hilariously the second charge is leveled by a writer who almost assuredly is writing under an assumed name, a tactic commonly used at VDare. Who is hiding what and for what purpose?
The first charge is theoretically more serious, especially since the implication is that Raimondo has "flip-flopped" on issues regarding race in order to form a tactical alliance with post-9/11 anti-imperalists leftists. There are several problems with this argument, but perhaps the largest is the fact that one of the key pieces of evidence linked by "Mr. Pendleton" is a piece Raimondo wrote almost a year BEFORE Sept. 11th.
Another problem is the method used by "Pendleton". "Pendleton" seems to believe that by quoting the deceased Murray Rothbard on issues relating to crime, immigration, ethnicity, et. he can trap Raimondo in inconsistency or politically correct pandering. The problem is that this ignores the core arguments behind Rothbard's statements, not to mention Rothbard's own record as a writer pertaining to the very matters Raimondo is accused of being soft on.
To take one example, this quote regarding the Jeremiah Wright fiasco is used to indict Mr. Raimondo:
Of course, Wright's contention that "no black man will ever be considered for president" is refuted by the very fact of Obama's front-runner status. Perhaps only Hillary Clinton—who recently offered Obama the vice presidency, in spite of the fact that he's ahead of her by every measure—and a few yahoos out in the sticks are stuck in this old mindset. As for the rest, it's undeniably true. We do have more black men in prison than in college—way more. Racism is alive and well; driving while black is still a dangerous pastime. This country was founded with a near-fatal flaw in the constitutional order, one that permitted slavery to continue for another hundred years.”
There may be an argument worth having about WHY there is a higher rate of black crime, or why blacks are pulled over in disproportionate numbers, but is "Mr. Pendleton" seriously arguing that Raimondo is off the mark? The statistics don't lie on this one, and though Murray may have given a favorable review to the Bell Curve, he also endorsed the communatarian spirit of the Black Panthers and in his recently published book The Betrayal of The American Right Rothbard argued that the spirit of the "Old Right" was directly linked to abolitionists of the William Lloyd Garrison variety.
Frankly, "Mr. Pendleton" either hasn't read much Rothbard, or is only interested in Rothbard and the paleolibertarians as a tool to further a narrow white nationalist agenda, that offers little in the way of solutions to complex questions it has no problems raising.
As I have said before, "race realist" paleocons ought to ask themselves some serious questions, not the least of which is "what if we are right?". If it is true that multicultural societies don't work (their strongest argument in my opinion), that blacks are intellectually inferior to whites, and that ethnicity matters as much or more than anything else, what sort of program is the best for their cause? Demented fantasies about recolonization and paternalist statism aside (the Charles Murray preferred approach I might add), the best option appears to be culture and community secession, for autonomous groups of all ethnic makeups, mixed or otherwise. Strangely (or not so strangely if you ask me), this is the exact same proposal called for by the Rothbardians, whether "Left-libertarian", "paleolibertarian" or unaffiliated. This has also been the argument of a variety of black nationalists and localists from Fredrick Douglas to Booker T. Washington to Robert Williams to Amiri Baraka to the NOI to the Five Percenters to the..well, you can see the trend.
Again, it is time from the white nationalists and race mongering paleos to get serious. Instead of bitching about Raimondo's tactical alliance with leftists, they ought to examine why prominent writers from their movement have had no problem writing for the Israeli-First, neocon lunatics at FrontPageMagazine. Instead of applauding Lew Rockwell for pro-police state comments he made in the LA Times over a decade ago, they ought to ask themselves how similar tactics worked out for Randy Weaver and his family. Most of all, instead of criticizing the colored folk for being pissed off about the racial realities of American life, they ought to consider what small government separatism can and would mean for both sides.
Friday, May 16, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Wow, yet another permutation on the meaning of "left libertarian", interesting.
I think what we're running into here are cultural preferences masquerading as principles, honestly. Pendleton isn't right and the LRC consensus isn't wrong. What we're all trying to figure out is what the free society will look like, and just because we have an opinion on that question doesn't mean we have any certainty whatsoever.
As a left libertarian (http://leftlibertarian.org) I actually share many of their views on race, mostly that there's nothing inherently good about integrating races and cultures, nor inherently bad about them being separate. I'd like to see how society peacefully configures itself.
I do believe that many traditionally "leftist" ends like radical redistribution and egalitarianism will be realized in an authentically anarcho-libertarian society. But as I explain in an earlier essay, as long as force is eschewed I would not reject any stateless society based on my preconceived preferences. Far too often, libertarians fail to distinguish between cultural bias and principles floating down from on high (that relativism is part of what makes me describe myself as "left" - much of what passes for principle in politics is really just an opinion). And of course, it is always on these matters of opinion that supposed libertarians advocate exceptions to the use of force (such as conceptions of property).
Good post!
We've spoken about this several times and I have come and it seems likely that the reason why the VDare crowd and those like them seem to favor crazed schemes like sending the negro back to Africa etc. as solutions to these problems instead of black communal autonomy is because they fear black power and they fear black people.
I think this should be pointed out to them and the real question should be something along the lines of "okay, so different races and cultures can't seem mix without lots of problems. So where is your plausible solution?"
Sometimes it's enough just to raise a question or plant a seed, but at some point one has to be willing to engage in serious discussion about the answers.
Black folks ain't going away any time soon. Is the solution more division or attempting to recognize the similarities between black and white leaders who favor self determination and community control instead of more government and special favors.
(This is a repost from Takimag's page:)
Needless to say, the divide between paleos (both conservatives and libertarians) on matters of race and racialism are deep and real. Sam Francis, who has probably influenced my own thinking more than anyone, was a true believer in white nationalism and regularly contributed to American Renaissance, while his friend and Chronicles Magazine editor Thomas Fleming rejected the racialists, writing "White Like Me" (couldn't find a link, sorry). Fleming's piece remains one of my favorite on the subject.
I even remember the first time I became familiar with the name "Llewellyn Rockwell," when he wrote in Chronicles - a magazine I had never heard of but became interested in because of the Pat Buchanan campaign of 1996 - that even segregation was more humane and better than the federal regulation that was to follow.
No doubt, race matters. But neither Raimondo nor Epstein are completely wrong here.
Let's pretend that everything Epstein, Jared Taylor and even the late Sam Francis believed concerning heredity, IQ and genetics pertaining to race is completely true. As such men often point out - there is much evidence to suggest it is.
Let's pretend that Raimondo is correct - that science alone should be questioned because it changes so rapidly, and today's genetic determinism is akin to yesterday's professional medical opinions on the benefits of bloodletting. History provides much evidence to prove Raimondo's point.
Russell Kirk (the man who took me from Dittohead to paleo, my eternal thanks Russell) frequently described conservatism as the absence of ideology. To paraphrase Fleming - for too many racialists and libertarians alike - faith dictates facts.
As Raimondo (and Dylan Waco, who Raimondo references) points out, for too many on the paleo side there is an obsession with race, unhealthy in my opinion, where genetics determine everything.
By the same token, too many libertarians of the paleo persuasion (as opposed to the Reason crowd, etc.) are so obsessed with free markets and stateless conceptions, that even the local constable is eternally the enemy and culture, identity and race "determine" nothing. This is absurd.
The mistake in both camps, it seems, is the inability to see beyond their niche politics.
Cannot there be a moral realm that overlaps the scientific realm on race? In other words, what would the racialists propose we do about their base assumptions?
Reinstitute segregation? If their goal is to rid white Americans of their white guilt so they can make rational decisions - then I wholeheartedly agree - and I consider Jared Taylor one of the best speakers on the subject of multiculturalism.
If racialists’ goal is to get rid of, or suppress non-whites, then I cannot agree, can't imagine the practicality of enforcing such a policy and can't imagine how anyone who describes himself as a "conservative" would even find this worthwhile.
Such politics are morally wrong, from a humane standpoint. Science or no science.
For libertarians, cannot there not be a practical realm that overlaps their base assumptions?
Libertarians are absolutely correct that only decentralization and a drastic reduction of the state can truly solve the cultural, economic, political (and racial, frankly) problems that ail us. Raimondo, Rockwell, Rothbard and co. are often the best, and more importantly most practical, guides to a revolutionary brand of politics that might actually make some headway. Just ask Ron Paul.
But is Wal-Mart really good for the American middle class? While police are indeed Tazer happy these days, is my friend's Dad, a 30-year police veteran, a storm trooper for the Empire? And does anyone really believe the gargantuan mass of Hispanic immigrants invading the U.S. will have no affect on our future, politically, culturally and racially?
As I have said often - diversity isn't a "strength" - it's a bitch. The biracial history of the U.S. proves as much. It makes no sense to import another problem en masse.
Instead of ripping each other to shreds at a moment in time when we might finally break out of the blogosphere - thanks to the Ron Paul campaign - can we concede that all camps of the paleo political world aren't entirely unreasonable, while resisting our own temptations to go off the deep end? A “no enemies on the paleo Right” policy might serve us well.
Takimag is my favorite site currently because of the broad array of perspectives and healthy debate. Paul Gottfried is also invaluable in conceding points from everyone, standing firm in his convictions, and yet is never hysterical about his own facts.
We need to debate. We need to constantly refresh, review and reinvigorate what we believe in.
But paleos of all stripes agree on much more than not, especially when compared with the neoconservatives and their media might – our clearest and first enemy.
To quote the great humanitarian ( and perhaps genetically questionable, c’mon, afford me one joke) Rodney King “can’t we all just get along?”
This might be a tall order, but certainly no more utopian than racial separatism or anarcho-capitalism.
Jack
Post a Comment