Wednesday, November 26, 2008
New TAC
The newest issue of The American Conservative magazine, has an essay of mine on William Appleman Williams and Gabriel Kolko. If you sign up for a free trial subscription, you can read it in PDF online.
Sunday, November 16, 2008
Mike Paul v. Ron Paul via Pat Buchanan
This is a truly bizarre exchange.
Mike Paul says the GOP needs to reach out to minorities and listen to young, fresh ideas. Since the only young people with any sort of energy and fresh ideas in this years Republican race were the Ron Paul supporters one assume Mike would be on board for Gary Johnson in 2012. After all the former New Mexico Governor has been an advocate of drug decriminalization for years, which is one of the three or four biggest issues facing many young people and minorities in America today.
Instead Mike Paul is simply spitting out empty platitudes aimed at shutting down any "traditionalist" takeover. You see in the eyes of Mike Paul, David Brooks, and friends, these "traditionalists" are somehow most strongly represented in the person of Sean Hannity, a New Yorker, with a transparently phony interest in country music, and a look (and attitude) strikingly similar to an anti-hero in a Bret Ellis novel. Since those scary, nominally Christian folks are too dangerous to allow at the helm of the party, weirdos that believe in things like the gold standard or getting rid of federal departments, like Ron Paul, should have no say in the direction of the party post-blowout 08. After all, when the good doctor goes to Manhattan he's signing books for the plebes, not having cocktails with Maureen Dowd.
In fact the only thing worse to the neocons and Wall Street-firsters than Ron Paul and his supporters, might be Patrick J. Buchanan, who seems to offend Mike Paul in the clip above by asking him to "examine himself," a suggestion Mike ought to take to heart. Pat has been right about virtually every major issue facing the nation over the last fifteen years, and his call to bring the party back toward its conservative base makes more sense than the "big tent" strategy of trying to out liberal the liberals.
If the GOP cares about staying alive, not only should they listen to Mr. Buchanan, they should take a look at the recent history of their Democratic opponents.
The Democratic tide that has swept the country in the last two elections, has a lot to do with the fact that rank-and-file Dems had buyers remorse after the Kerry campaign, and put the 04 netroots Messiah, Howad Dean, at the front of their party. Dean had the good sense to run a fifty state strategy, that actually molded the parties branding to the whims, wants and needs of voters in each individual county. This is why Democrats likes Heath Shuler and Jon Tester got elected in the supposedly "liberal" party. Dean and the Dems understand the populist appeals that can be made to their base and use them effectively. That these appeals are sometimes dangerously statists, does not make them any less real or tangible.
The mess that is the GOP will likely leave the actual traditionalist right with some opportunities, but I have my doubts precisely because of squabbles like the one represented in the video above. Buchanan was right on every pressing issue of our time and he is still treated as if he is an aloof old man by those in the party who have the money, media monopoly and institutions in their grasp.
The Deanics seized control of a party that was running against the evil "other" and defined themselves as the anti-war party, of working class Bush victims. The Republicans refuse to allow anti-war officials to even have a voice, and are too busy bailing out Wall Street to care about Main Street.
The Democrats listened to their youth movement, followed the internet phenom, and created their own institutions, media personalities and political language from that framework. Insurgents in the GOP will be fighting against Brent Bozell, Tony Perkins and Fox News, as much or more than they are fighting against the remnants of the Bush Administration.
There isn't a vacuum in the GOP right now, there are a bunch of power mongers looking to take the whole table for themselves without offering any one else, ESPECIALLY the populists, a seat.
Which raises the question; why not make our own table?
Monday, November 10, 2008
Obama's Victory is the Best Thing for Conservatives
By Daniel Bein
Chuck Baldwin has a great article up at Renew America in which he argues that it was not Barack Obama who destroyed conservatism, but John McCain and George W. Bush. Baldwin couldn't be more right, and conservatives who thought a McCain victory would be preferable to an Obama couldn't have been more wrong. I understand the argument that Obama having a Democratic congress being bad news, but that simply is not enough to justify the quintessential neocon becoming George W. Bush's successor. This would have validated everything the neocons have done and given them the seal of approval of the American people.
As Baldwin points out, it was Bush and McCain who damaged the term "conservative" beyond repair-- they have destroyed it. Unfortunately those who wish to preserve the term as something to describe the small-government conservatism of men like Russel Kirk and Robert Taft will be fighting a losing battle.
This is not the work of men like Obama, who will deliver on their promises to enlarge government overseas and at home. This is the legacy of Bush and McCain, who have posed as small government conservatives, and all the while have done nothing but enlarge government and speed the conversion of the American Republic to the (already crumbling) American Empire. All who call themselves conservatives, but supported Bush even after the disastrous nature of his inventions became apparent share the blame. No matter how liberal Obama is, it is not he who is guilty of such treachery, and he is not the one who dealt the death blow.
With all the damage that Bush, McCain and the rest of the neocons have done to American conservatism and American prosperity, we should be thankful that Obama defeated McCain. A McCain victory would have rewarded the ego driven stupidity of the neoconservatives and given them the go ahead to continue destroying what better men have sought to build. Instead Barack Obama's win has repudiate the villains who so richly deserved it. Now conservatives are at a crossroads. Perhaps this is an opportunity for Ron Paul Republicans to take over the party- or perhaps, as Baldwin suggests, it is time for something new to emerge.
With the Republican party ripe for a take-over, perhaps the Democrats will be next. They were elected in 2006 to end the war, and didn't. They have won the presidency and a majority in both houses for the same reason, and once again they will not end the wars they were elected to end. Perhaps this will erode confidence in the Democratic Party as the saviors of America to the point that a Republican party firmly planted on the small government/anti war right will be able to oust them. Or perhaps the Democrats can be taken over by their populist wing. (I can see how this point contradicts my previous posts-- perhaps my predictions are all a bit premature, as I'm already altering them).
Hopefully, the election of Barack Obama will expose the Democratic wing of the war party for what they truly are the way Bush exposed the Republicans. Either way, it has stopped the scoundrels who killed conservatism from picking the pockets of its corpse.
Chuck Baldwin has a great article up at Renew America in which he argues that it was not Barack Obama who destroyed conservatism, but John McCain and George W. Bush. Baldwin couldn't be more right, and conservatives who thought a McCain victory would be preferable to an Obama couldn't have been more wrong. I understand the argument that Obama having a Democratic congress being bad news, but that simply is not enough to justify the quintessential neocon becoming George W. Bush's successor. This would have validated everything the neocons have done and given them the seal of approval of the American people.
As Baldwin points out, it was Bush and McCain who damaged the term "conservative" beyond repair-- they have destroyed it. Unfortunately those who wish to preserve the term as something to describe the small-government conservatism of men like Russel Kirk and Robert Taft will be fighting a losing battle.
This is not the work of men like Obama, who will deliver on their promises to enlarge government overseas and at home. This is the legacy of Bush and McCain, who have posed as small government conservatives, and all the while have done nothing but enlarge government and speed the conversion of the American Republic to the (already crumbling) American Empire. All who call themselves conservatives, but supported Bush even after the disastrous nature of his inventions became apparent share the blame. No matter how liberal Obama is, it is not he who is guilty of such treachery, and he is not the one who dealt the death blow.
With all the damage that Bush, McCain and the rest of the neocons have done to American conservatism and American prosperity, we should be thankful that Obama defeated McCain. A McCain victory would have rewarded the ego driven stupidity of the neoconservatives and given them the go ahead to continue destroying what better men have sought to build. Instead Barack Obama's win has repudiate the villains who so richly deserved it. Now conservatives are at a crossroads. Perhaps this is an opportunity for Ron Paul Republicans to take over the party- or perhaps, as Baldwin suggests, it is time for something new to emerge.
With the Republican party ripe for a take-over, perhaps the Democrats will be next. They were elected in 2006 to end the war, and didn't. They have won the presidency and a majority in both houses for the same reason, and once again they will not end the wars they were elected to end. Perhaps this will erode confidence in the Democratic Party as the saviors of America to the point that a Republican party firmly planted on the small government/anti war right will be able to oust them. Or perhaps the Democrats can be taken over by their populist wing. (I can see how this point contradicts my previous posts-- perhaps my predictions are all a bit premature, as I'm already altering them).
Hopefully, the election of Barack Obama will expose the Democratic wing of the war party for what they truly are the way Bush exposed the Republicans. Either way, it has stopped the scoundrels who killed conservatism from picking the pockets of its corpse.
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
The Emerging Cult of Obama
By Daniel Bein
I looks like I was right about the absolute elation most of my peers here in Charleston expressed when Obama was made President Elect. There were cheers, shouts and even tears as he gave his acceptance speech. There were parties at the bars downtown (I received a free glass of Champaign as I walked into one) and I couldn't walk down the street without hearing shouts of "Obama". Strangers patted me on the back and shook my hand, assuming that I was just as happy as they were, due to my age and my presence in the bar where 99% of the people were ecstatic over Obama's victory.
I must admit, I did feel a great surge of relief as the fear of another four years of Bush (under McCain) was put to rest. But it quickly faded as I realized that my prediction from November third may be all too true. From what I saw last night, Obama is going to get a free pass from most of the young people in America who hated Bush so viscerally.
Obama's speech sounded great. But will his deeds match his words? He said that government wasn't the solution to every problem, and that he would listen to those who disagreed with him. And I do believe that unlike Bush, Obama is a man who can be reasoned with and will not be completely unreachable once his mind is made up. But from the looks of it, Obama is gearing up to launch a new era of big government solutions that are going to cost billions, he also supported the vile Wall Street bailout that most Americans found abhorrent.
While it's true that Obama is no Bush, he's also no Ron Paul, and he's no Nader or Kucinich. He is not a peace candidate. He has been sliding closer and closer to the center when it comes to war and has pledged allegiance to AIPAC, has vowed that no option is off the table when it comes to Iran, and has informed us that he will pull the troops from Iraq, only to ship many of them to Afghanistan and possibly engage in military activities in Pakistan. In fact, the good Senator is even more hawkish on Pakistan than the hawk of hawks, John McCain.
So while this is a turning point and the end of a disgusting period in American politics, it is only the beginning of a new administration that is no less beholden to corporate greed, powerful special interest groups and the ideology of interventionism that has been slowly pushing America toward the edge since World War I. Is Obama better than Bush and McCain? You bet. But if we go by what the man has told us, he is not going to bring peace to the Middle East or curb the expansion of empire and runaway government.
Last night I had dream about Obama. In the dream and he was doing some sort of Q and A session that I had access to for some reason. I tried to ask him about foreign interventions and to plead the case for reconsidering further military action in the Middle East, but he wouldn't take my question. He seemed evasive. He spoke to me, but wouldn't let me get to the question. In the dream he seemed like a really good guy, but was unwilling to reconsider his position. I fear this may be the case in reality.
The youth have been the most vocal opponents of Bush's disastrous policies. There energy and enthusiasm is needed now more than ever. Will their anger now fade, converting the anti-Bush masses into the Cult of Obama?
I looks like I was right about the absolute elation most of my peers here in Charleston expressed when Obama was made President Elect. There were cheers, shouts and even tears as he gave his acceptance speech. There were parties at the bars downtown (I received a free glass of Champaign as I walked into one) and I couldn't walk down the street without hearing shouts of "Obama". Strangers patted me on the back and shook my hand, assuming that I was just as happy as they were, due to my age and my presence in the bar where 99% of the people were ecstatic over Obama's victory.
I must admit, I did feel a great surge of relief as the fear of another four years of Bush (under McCain) was put to rest. But it quickly faded as I realized that my prediction from November third may be all too true. From what I saw last night, Obama is going to get a free pass from most of the young people in America who hated Bush so viscerally.
Obama's speech sounded great. But will his deeds match his words? He said that government wasn't the solution to every problem, and that he would listen to those who disagreed with him. And I do believe that unlike Bush, Obama is a man who can be reasoned with and will not be completely unreachable once his mind is made up. But from the looks of it, Obama is gearing up to launch a new era of big government solutions that are going to cost billions, he also supported the vile Wall Street bailout that most Americans found abhorrent.
While it's true that Obama is no Bush, he's also no Ron Paul, and he's no Nader or Kucinich. He is not a peace candidate. He has been sliding closer and closer to the center when it comes to war and has pledged allegiance to AIPAC, has vowed that no option is off the table when it comes to Iran, and has informed us that he will pull the troops from Iraq, only to ship many of them to Afghanistan and possibly engage in military activities in Pakistan. In fact, the good Senator is even more hawkish on Pakistan than the hawk of hawks, John McCain.
So while this is a turning point and the end of a disgusting period in American politics, it is only the beginning of a new administration that is no less beholden to corporate greed, powerful special interest groups and the ideology of interventionism that has been slowly pushing America toward the edge since World War I. Is Obama better than Bush and McCain? You bet. But if we go by what the man has told us, he is not going to bring peace to the Middle East or curb the expansion of empire and runaway government.
Last night I had dream about Obama. In the dream and he was doing some sort of Q and A session that I had access to for some reason. I tried to ask him about foreign interventions and to plead the case for reconsidering further military action in the Middle East, but he wouldn't take my question. He seemed evasive. He spoke to me, but wouldn't let me get to the question. In the dream he seemed like a really good guy, but was unwilling to reconsider his position. I fear this may be the case in reality.
The youth have been the most vocal opponents of Bush's disastrous policies. There energy and enthusiasm is needed now more than ever. Will their anger now fade, converting the anti-Bush masses into the Cult of Obama?
Monday, November 3, 2008
Obama and the Return of Apathy
By Daniel Bein
Lately there has been much debate as to which presidential candidate is the "lesser of two evils". Many on the paleo right claim that McCain is more desirable. To these folks Obama is a bogey man; a mysterious black nationalist with questionable associations, who, along with his democratic majority, will impose a socialistic new wold order on a vulnerable American public. Others argue (and I am among them) that McCain is the more repugnant of the two due to his role as neocon poster child, war monger extraordinaire, and emotionally unstable egomaniac. McCain is also no less of a socialist than Obama, since it was he who fought hardest for one the most massive socialistic swindles of all time, the Wall Street Bailout. Is not picking the pockets of American workers and giving the proceeds to corporate robber barons a clear example of "wealth redistribution"?
While I won't be voting for either mainstream candidate, I will be less horrified to see an Obama victory than to see the neocons cemented in place for four more years. That being said, I am left with one nagging fear should Obama prevail: the end of dissatisfaction with the executive and anti-war sentiment among 18-35 year olds. With Obama in the White House most of these young people will assume that the Candidate of Change will fix all of their woes. If he's true to his word he will pull the troops from Iraq and say the necessary things about defending a woman's right to choose and other social issues, and that will be enough for most of the people who are supporting him now.
Like Clinton, the liberal minded youth will love Obama. And like Clinton in Bosnia, most won't bat an eyelash over his disastrous foreign interventions. There won't be massive protests when he gets us bogged down in an even more disastrous situation in Afghanistan, and possibly Pakistan as he has pledged to do. The anger will fade when the perceived villains are no longer in office. This will be a sad testament to the fact that most people will ignore the degradation of our currency, a sinking economy and the spread of empire as long as the man in the White House agrees with them on their pet social issues.
When Obama most likely wins the White House tomorrow, there will be much celebration. Most of the people I know who are around my age will be ecstatic. They are going to go out and rock the vote, then celebrate like mad when Obama is chosen to succeed George W. Bush, who most of them consider to be the worst president of all time. I can relate, as I too won't be able to resist a slight sense of elation at bidding good riddance to that bad rubbish.
But there is not doubt that when Bush is out, apathy will set in. And without the energy of the young, we will be worse off in the fight against government excess. This is not enough to justify four more years of neocon rule under McCain, but it is still a frightening prospect. It's always easier to find allies when there's an easily recognizable villain to face. With Obama, they won't see the train coming until it's on top of them. The most dangerous bad guys don't always stroke their mustaches while tying you to the tracks, they smile to your face, then stab you in the back.
Lately there has been much debate as to which presidential candidate is the "lesser of two evils". Many on the paleo right claim that McCain is more desirable. To these folks Obama is a bogey man; a mysterious black nationalist with questionable associations, who, along with his democratic majority, will impose a socialistic new wold order on a vulnerable American public. Others argue (and I am among them) that McCain is the more repugnant of the two due to his role as neocon poster child, war monger extraordinaire, and emotionally unstable egomaniac. McCain is also no less of a socialist than Obama, since it was he who fought hardest for one the most massive socialistic swindles of all time, the Wall Street Bailout. Is not picking the pockets of American workers and giving the proceeds to corporate robber barons a clear example of "wealth redistribution"?
While I won't be voting for either mainstream candidate, I will be less horrified to see an Obama victory than to see the neocons cemented in place for four more years. That being said, I am left with one nagging fear should Obama prevail: the end of dissatisfaction with the executive and anti-war sentiment among 18-35 year olds. With Obama in the White House most of these young people will assume that the Candidate of Change will fix all of their woes. If he's true to his word he will pull the troops from Iraq and say the necessary things about defending a woman's right to choose and other social issues, and that will be enough for most of the people who are supporting him now.
Like Clinton, the liberal minded youth will love Obama. And like Clinton in Bosnia, most won't bat an eyelash over his disastrous foreign interventions. There won't be massive protests when he gets us bogged down in an even more disastrous situation in Afghanistan, and possibly Pakistan as he has pledged to do. The anger will fade when the perceived villains are no longer in office. This will be a sad testament to the fact that most people will ignore the degradation of our currency, a sinking economy and the spread of empire as long as the man in the White House agrees with them on their pet social issues.
When Obama most likely wins the White House tomorrow, there will be much celebration. Most of the people I know who are around my age will be ecstatic. They are going to go out and rock the vote, then celebrate like mad when Obama is chosen to succeed George W. Bush, who most of them consider to be the worst president of all time. I can relate, as I too won't be able to resist a slight sense of elation at bidding good riddance to that bad rubbish.
But there is not doubt that when Bush is out, apathy will set in. And without the energy of the young, we will be worse off in the fight against government excess. This is not enough to justify four more years of neocon rule under McCain, but it is still a frightening prospect. It's always easier to find allies when there's an easily recognizable villain to face. With Obama, they won't see the train coming until it's on top of them. The most dangerous bad guys don't always stroke their mustaches while tying you to the tracks, they smile to your face, then stab you in the back.
Sunday, November 2, 2008
Bill Kauffman endorses Nader
Chalk another paleoish, decentralist, vote up for Nader.
1. Who are you voting for in November and why? Ralph Nader, because I never got the chance to vote for Gene Debs or Norman Thomas.
Before any opponents of the "red menace" pop up to condemn that sort of language, remember that the father of American Conservatism, Russell Kirk, voted for Socialist Norman Thomas and it was our greatest (and last conservative) President, Warren Harding, who pardoned the anti-war thought criminal and bane of the Wilson administration, Eugene Debs.
Also worth noting, in 2004 I didn't vote, but my wife cast her lot with the Socialist Party candidate Walt Brown, possibly the only pro-life, military veteran (of three wars), with years of state legislature experience to run on an anti-NASA plank. Who can find fault with that? Certainly not those "holding their nose" to vote for McWar.
1. Who are you voting for in November and why? Ralph Nader, because I never got the chance to vote for Gene Debs or Norman Thomas.
Before any opponents of the "red menace" pop up to condemn that sort of language, remember that the father of American Conservatism, Russell Kirk, voted for Socialist Norman Thomas and it was our greatest (and last conservative) President, Warren Harding, who pardoned the anti-war thought criminal and bane of the Wilson administration, Eugene Debs.
Also worth noting, in 2004 I didn't vote, but my wife cast her lot with the Socialist Party candidate Walt Brown, possibly the only pro-life, military veteran (of three wars), with years of state legislature experience to run on an anti-NASA plank. Who can find fault with that? Certainly not those "holding their nose" to vote for McWar.
Saturday, November 1, 2008
Ralph Nader: The Left Conservative choice.
By Daniel Bein
During the 2008 election season I have often found myself fantasizing about a world in which the 2008 Presidential race is a heated contest between front runners Chuck Baldwin and Ralph Nader. If this pleasant fiction were instead reality, I could scarcely complain if either man took the White House. Unfortunately, this is not the case, and we are instead left with the same old choice between two utterly disastrous candidates.
John McCain, the hawk of all hawks, is easily the more revolting of the two, and despite Obama's liberalism and undying devotion to the big government war machine, he is far less dangerous than McCain. Even with a Democratic congress at his beck and call, Obama is not a neoconservative, and it is precisely this group (for which John McCain is the poster child) that must never be allowed to inhabit the White House again. McCain is also a narcissistic hot head who shouldn't be allowed to make decisions which effect the lives of millions.
So the principled voter is left with three choices: third party candidates, a write in which may or may not count, or abstaining. I will be at the polls on the fourth and will not refrain from casting a vote against the abysmal two party system, so abstaining is not an option. And since South Carolina doesn't count write ins, I won't make what would otherwise be the most satisfying choice and write in Ron Paul. So my only option is to choose the best third party candidate.
Bob Barr and Cynthia McKinney can be dismissed straight away. McKinney is wrong on far too much and Barr is both an egomaniac (and potential Republican mole) who has had an overwhelmingly negative effect on the Libertarian Pary. By selling out to him the Libertarians have ruined their chances of becoming a vehicle for the liberty movement that Ron Paul launched with his insurgent campaign for the Republican nomination.
So that leaves Constitution Party candidate Chuck Baldwin and independent candidate Ralph Nader. A friend of mine has argued that principled conservatives should vote for Chuck Baldwin and principled leftists for Ralph Nader. While I agree with this logic, as a self professed "left conservative", I like aspects of both men and have had a very hard time choosing between them. Chuck Baldwin is right on the majority of the issues, and his commitment to small government is more to my liking that Nader's affinity for government solutions such as universal health care, whereas on social issues I lean towards Nader and am not a fan of Baldwin's fundamentalism. But Baldwin's decentralism almost negates this, and the decision remains difficult even after weighing the pros and cons.
So I must agree with Dylan that since Nader has access to more ballots (and with Justin Raimondo that he is the most vocal opponent of tyranny and empire in the race), a vote for Nader is the best way to make a statement against the American military-industrial empire. For this reason Nader just barely edges out Chuck Baldwin for me. In a saner world, where one of these two men had a chance of winning, I would not be unhappy with either. Both would be a good choice for those committed to sending the message that empire and excess will not be tolerated.
During the 2008 election season I have often found myself fantasizing about a world in which the 2008 Presidential race is a heated contest between front runners Chuck Baldwin and Ralph Nader. If this pleasant fiction were instead reality, I could scarcely complain if either man took the White House. Unfortunately, this is not the case, and we are instead left with the same old choice between two utterly disastrous candidates.
John McCain, the hawk of all hawks, is easily the more revolting of the two, and despite Obama's liberalism and undying devotion to the big government war machine, he is far less dangerous than McCain. Even with a Democratic congress at his beck and call, Obama is not a neoconservative, and it is precisely this group (for which John McCain is the poster child) that must never be allowed to inhabit the White House again. McCain is also a narcissistic hot head who shouldn't be allowed to make decisions which effect the lives of millions.
So the principled voter is left with three choices: third party candidates, a write in which may or may not count, or abstaining. I will be at the polls on the fourth and will not refrain from casting a vote against the abysmal two party system, so abstaining is not an option. And since South Carolina doesn't count write ins, I won't make what would otherwise be the most satisfying choice and write in Ron Paul. So my only option is to choose the best third party candidate.
Bob Barr and Cynthia McKinney can be dismissed straight away. McKinney is wrong on far too much and Barr is both an egomaniac (and potential Republican mole) who has had an overwhelmingly negative effect on the Libertarian Pary. By selling out to him the Libertarians have ruined their chances of becoming a vehicle for the liberty movement that Ron Paul launched with his insurgent campaign for the Republican nomination.
So that leaves Constitution Party candidate Chuck Baldwin and independent candidate Ralph Nader. A friend of mine has argued that principled conservatives should vote for Chuck Baldwin and principled leftists for Ralph Nader. While I agree with this logic, as a self professed "left conservative", I like aspects of both men and have had a very hard time choosing between them. Chuck Baldwin is right on the majority of the issues, and his commitment to small government is more to my liking that Nader's affinity for government solutions such as universal health care, whereas on social issues I lean towards Nader and am not a fan of Baldwin's fundamentalism. But Baldwin's decentralism almost negates this, and the decision remains difficult even after weighing the pros and cons.
So I must agree with Dylan that since Nader has access to more ballots (and with Justin Raimondo that he is the most vocal opponent of tyranny and empire in the race), a vote for Nader is the best way to make a statement against the American military-industrial empire. For this reason Nader just barely edges out Chuck Baldwin for me. In a saner world, where one of these two men had a chance of winning, I would not be unhappy with either. Both would be a good choice for those committed to sending the message that empire and excess will not be tolerated.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
