Matt Welch: Meh

Posted on | February 13, 2010 | 25 Comments

by Smitty (h/t Insty)

It’s something of a tangent from Welch’s main point over at Reason, but his characterization of conservatives as unsophisticated is exactly that:

Speaking only for myself, I don’t see libertarianism moving rightward, I see rightward moving libertarian. Which is to be expected, what with the whole not-having-power thing (as Kilgore points out, the Democrats’ wilderness years included such incongruities as Markos Moulitsas penning “libertarian Democrat” manifestos).

I submit that there’s a longer-term trend afoot which is overlooked here. The chief metric is the debt, but there is an increasing realization that the Constitution needn’t mean a government homogeneous from top to bottom; one can argue a libertarian Federal government and free up room for 50 vibrantly different States covering the Red/Blue spectrum.

Common sense hints that the wrong-headedness of Socialism in the Blue states is going to kill those States over time, but shouldn’t them godless Blue State Commies welcome their Darwinian recompense? No. No, they don’t: they just reach for more wallets.

Many libertarians already treat the Tea Party movement (and more than that, Sarah Palin) with 10-foot tongs, and it won’t take many more Joe Farah/Tom Tancredo Tea Party-branded speeches to expose many of the conservative/libertarian cracks that were so evident during the Bushitler years.

So, any tinfoil hat fringe whacko racist goober must be conservative, because libertarians cannot, by definition, be nutcases? To those libertarians I’d say “Thank you sir, may I have another?”

As for welfare and all that, again this is just me talking, but I have never for one second in my life used or thought the phrase “welfare queen” to mean anything besides one of those Evil Corporations my liberal pals are so afraid of. I don’t give one shit about ACORN, wouldn’t vote for Sarah Palin at gunpoint, and don’t look down the rostrum at that nice Center for American Progress colleague fretting about their private thoughts.

And if Governor Palin’s actual platform, when published, veers libertarian, what then? The endorsement of Rand Paul–what does that mean? Nice to know that you’ll vote for Hillary in 2012, just to save yourself from Governor Palin’s atrocious accent. Accents matter, you know.

What I do care about, regardless of who’s president, is human freedom and prosperity. And I strongly and consistently suspect that when the government accumulates more power, I and everyone else (except those wielding it) have less of which I seek. Republicans diss libertarians when they’re in power, and Democrats diss libertarians when they’re in power. Their changing attitudes toward our little (albeit growing) tribe is mildly interesting, but it’s about as newsworthy (and painful) as a dog biting a chew toy.

The truth behind this statement is that Republicans and Democrats are both conferences of the Progressive Political Football League. Kudos to Ron Paul for fighting the good fight, but the simple matter is that Americans of any stripe have been totally asleep at the switch for a century.
Possibly we can focus on a united, Constitutional, strongly libertarian front to set about fixing matters. Some of your allies may be given to outbursts of religious, super-rational altruism as they set about rejecting the Divine Federal Government. This does not make them Untouchables. It’ll be OK, Matt.

Category: Uncategorized

Comments

25 Responses to “Matt Welch: Meh”

Chuck Cross
February 14th, 2010 @ 4:06 am

As a Republican who believes in liberty, but is not a libertarian (capital L or lowercase l), I cannot tell you how much time I have wasted dealing with purists who are all-or-nothing/anarchists, or the objectivist libertarians who are perfectly okay with turning the rest-of-the-world into a glass parking lot if it is in our national interest.

“Republicans diss libertarians when they’re in power, and Democrats diss libertarians when they’re in power.”

And that is precisely why no one wants to work with you, Team Libertarian. If you hold everyone else in contempt, why shouldn’t you expect the same?

If DeMint can work with Bernie Sanders, I can work with those with whom I am not in 100% lockstep agreement.
Chuck Cross
February 13th, 2010 @ 11:06 pm

As a Republican who believes in liberty, but is not a libertarian (capital L or lowercase l), I cannot tell you how much time I have wasted dealing with purists who are all-or-nothing/anarchists, or the objectivist libertarians who are perfectly okay with turning the rest-of-the-world into a glass parking lot if it is in our national interest.

“Republicans diss libertarians when they’re in power, and Democrats diss libertarians when they’re in power.”

And that is precisely why no one wants to work with you, Team Libertarian. If you hold everyone else in contempt, why shouldn’t you expect the same?

If DeMint can work with Bernie Sanders, I can work with those with whom I am not in 100% lockstep agreement.
Ron Jones
February 14th, 2010 @ 5:56 am

I wouldn’t call myself a Libertarian….But that’s simply because I don’t identify with the tin-foil-hat wearing crowd who will not talk about eliminating social safety nets until after repealing the drug laws. Or who cling to half-baked conspiracy theories, while ignoring the blatant, daylight conspiracies that go on each and every day in the halls of power.

However, I categorically reject the Left/Right paradigm, and the current two-party monopoly as trap of Hegelian dialectics.

I’m with Judge Napolitano on this: we live in a one-party state. One party with two heads. Republicans and Democrats differ on how they want to spend the money they steal from you. But what they never differ on is the supremacy of the federal government over the states.

For those who haven’t studied history, the federal government is a creation of the states. “A government of the people, by the people, and for the people” is a fallacy. The phrase was invented by a mass-murdering tyrant who was in the process of usurping the powers of the states which formed the national government.

No, the federal government is “of the states, by the states, and for the states.” When the states came together, they entered into a voluntary federal compact; in which they enumerated (wrote down) a specific set of parameters within which the general government was to operate.

They then delegated a tiny portion of their sovereignty to this general government in order that it may have the authority to act within the limited parameters it was given.

The Kentucky & Virginia resolutions of 1798 are perfect examples of how states kept the federal government in line.

But it was not to be. The ideology of Hamilton, Marshall, Clay & Lincoln (high protective tariffs, corporate welfare, and a national bank to inflate the money supply & pay for it all) inevitably gained ground with the influx of immigrants that gave those states a voting majority.

After Lincoln and his war criminals raped, burned, and murdered their way through a foreign nation who just wanted to go their own way…they forced them into “the union” at the point of a bayonet dripping with the blood of women and children (so much for the “voluntary” federal compact).

With the passage of the 14th amendment (section 1 in particular), the federal government told the states that they were no longer sovereign entities, and the national authority could overturn any legislation a state passed which was deemed unacceptable.

Then, the passage of the 17th amendment removed any recourse or voice the states had in the federal government. They became mere administrative districts.

When the sun set on Appomattox that fateful April day in 1865, the Republic our forefathers bled for was no more.

Within a few short years, we became a domestic empire; massacring countless hundreds of thousands to take their land while enriching the politically well connected railroad families with tax money.

A scant few decades later, we had an international empire, and a military that enforced “business privilege” abroad (See “War is a Racket” by General Smedley D. Butler).

Today, we are teetering on the brink of collapse. Our elected officials have, for nearly a century, taxed, spent, and borrowed the difference. The chickens are now coming home to roost (see http://www.usdebtclock.org for the real-time numbers). We simply owe more money than we can ever pay back.

Even the script writers at SNL understand this (the recent skit of Obama & Hu Jintao is stunningly accurate). Those SNL guys are pretty sharp, but they’re entertainers, Finance isn’t their bailiwick; so if they understand the problem, you can bet that John Q. Public does too.

The “free” stuff demanded by our parents & grandparents generation must end (Search YouTube for “I.O.U.S.A. Byte Sized” for details). This includes military adventurism and the idea that we are “meals on wheels,” or “law enforcement” to the world.

Finally, read “A Century of War” by John V. Denson for a look at how we started down this road. As a veteran of 9+ years in the Marine Corps, this book broke my heart. But it woke me up.

Now, I am no longer a “Reagan republican.” And while I certainly cannot be a Democrat, I’m also not a Libertarian. I am ME. For those overly organized minds who simply must put me into a box…

…Label it Christian Paleo-Libertarian, and put me next to Lew Rockwell, Tom DiLorenzo, Thomas E. Woods et al. I will be in the company of a rapidly growing multitude.
Ron Jones
February 14th, 2010 @ 12:56 am

I wouldn’t call myself a Libertarian….But that’s simply because I don’t identify with the tin-foil-hat wearing crowd who will not talk about eliminating social safety nets until after repealing the drug laws. Or who cling to half-baked conspiracy theories, while ignoring the blatant, daylight conspiracies that go on each and every day in the halls of power.

However, I categorically reject the Left/Right paradigm, and the current two-party monopoly as trap of Hegelian dialectics.

I’m with Judge Napolitano on this: we live in a one-party state. One party with two heads. Republicans and Democrats differ on how they want to spend the money they steal from you. But what they never differ on is the supremacy of the federal government over the states.

For those who haven’t studied history, the federal government is a creation of the states. “A government of the people, by the people, and for the people” is a fallacy. The phrase was invented by a mass-murdering tyrant who was in the process of usurping the powers of the states which formed the national government.

No, the federal government is “of the states, by the states, and for the states.” When the states came together, they entered into a voluntary federal compact; in which they enumerated (wrote down) a specific set of parameters within which the general government was to operate.

They then delegated a tiny portion of their sovereignty to this general government in order that it may have the authority to act within the limited parameters it was given.

The Kentucky & Virginia resolutions of 1798 are perfect examples of how states kept the federal government in line.

But it was not to be. The ideology of Hamilton, Marshall, Clay & Lincoln (high protective tariffs, corporate welfare, and a national bank to inflate the money supply & pay for it all) inevitably gained ground with the influx of immigrants that gave those states a voting majority.

After Lincoln and his war criminals raped, burned, and murdered their way through a foreign nation who just wanted to go their own way…they forced them into “the union” at the point of a bayonet dripping with the blood of women and children (so much for the “voluntary” federal compact).

With the passage of the 14th amendment (section 1 in particular), the federal government told the states that they were no longer sovereign entities, and the national authority could overturn any legislation a state passed which was deemed unacceptable.

Then, the passage of the 17th amendment removed any recourse or voice the states had in the federal government. They became mere administrative districts.

When the sun set on Appomattox that fateful April day in 1865, the Republic our forefathers bled for was no more.

Within a few short years, we became a domestic empire; massacring countless hundreds of thousands to take their land while enriching the politically well connected railroad families with tax money.

A scant few decades later, we had an international empire, and a military that enforced “business privilege” abroad (See “War is a Racket” by General Smedley D. Butler).

Today, we are teetering on the brink of collapse. Our elected officials have, for nearly a century, taxed, spent, and borrowed the difference. The chickens are now coming home to roost (see http://www.usdebtclock.org for the real-time numbers). We simply owe more money than we can ever pay back.

Even the script writers at SNL understand this (the recent skit of Obama & Hu Jintao is stunningly accurate). Those SNL guys are pretty sharp, but they’re entertainers, Finance isn’t their bailiwick; so if they understand the problem, you can bet that John Q. Public does too.

The “free” stuff demanded by our parents & grandparents generation must end (Search YouTube for “I.O.U.S.A. Byte Sized” for details). This includes military adventurism and the idea that we are “meals on wheels,” or “law enforcement” to the world.

Finally, read “A Century of War” by John V. Denson for a look at how we started down this road. As a veteran of 9+ years in the Marine Corps, this book broke my heart. But it woke me up.

Now, I am no longer a “Reagan republican.” And while I certainly cannot be a Democrat, I’m also not a Libertarian. I am ME. For those overly organized minds who simply must put me into a box…

…Label it Christian Paleo-Libertarian, and put me next to Lew Rockwell, Tom DiLorenzo, Thomas E. Woods et al. I will be in the company of a rapidly growing multitude.
John S
February 14th, 2010 @ 7:43 am

Welch’s article was interesting, if a bit jumpy and condescending. But like Ron Jones up there, I think it would be advisable to absorb ideas and rational spokesmen like Lew Rockwell and Tom Woods into the growing Republican dialogue. For, what is more advantageous, a Republican party purged of libertarianism, left with big-government chatterboxes whose number one priority will never be anything but the Middle East? Or, a “big tent” of people who have different priorities, but a common thread: liberty?

Whose big tent would you rather be under? The Democrats’, which ranges from Social Democracy/Unfunded Entitlements/”Community Organizers” to the unions-first crowd to Maoists; or that of the Republicans, which ranges from 2nd Amendment advocates to staunch friends of Israel to free speech advocates to Paulites to Bushites to just your average “just want to be left alone” guy?
John S
February 14th, 2010 @ 2:43 am

Welch’s article was interesting, if a bit jumpy and condescending. But like Ron Jones up there, I think it would be advisable to absorb ideas and rational spokesmen like Lew Rockwell and Tom Woods into the growing Republican dialogue. For, what is more advantageous, a Republican party purged of libertarianism, left with big-government chatterboxes whose number one priority will never be anything but the Middle East? Or, a “big tent” of people who have different priorities, but a common thread: liberty?

Whose big tent would you rather be under? The Democrats’, which ranges from Social Democracy/Unfunded Entitlements/”Community Organizers” to the unions-first crowd to Maoists; or that of the Republicans, which ranges from 2nd Amendment advocates to staunch friends of Israel to free speech advocates to Paulites to Bushites to just your average “just want to be left alone” guy?
WestWright
February 14th, 2010 @ 10:48 am

JohnS, well reasoned reply to the Libtars vs R/Conservtars. I have noticed an interesting propensity of the Libtars and R/Conservtars to start sounding like the other hated group, the Progtars. An interesting comparison would be the evolution of the British lib/lab/con into one big mush of Leftist BigGov love, AGW scammers and NeoKeynesian failure.
WestWright
February 14th, 2010 @ 5:48 am

JohnS, well reasoned reply to the Libtars vs R/Conservtars. I have noticed an interesting propensity of the Libtars and R/Conservtars to start sounding like the other hated group, the Progtars. An interesting comparison would be the evolution of the British lib/lab/con into one big mush of Leftist BigGov love, AGW scammers and NeoKeynesian failure.
Guest
February 14th, 2010 @ 11:55 am

No, Libertarians are NOT nutcases (lew rockwell=everyone is Hitler) they are purity (pot-smoking anesthesiologists fighting for legalized heroin) who think rigged-market=free market.

Libertarians; your Party Pot, Porn and Dirty Dealing with Dictators for Greater Personal Profit Margin has left your nuts as impotent as your flaccid pricks.
Guest
February 14th, 2010 @ 6:55 am

No, Libertarians are NOT nutcases (lew rockwell=everyone is Hitler) they are purity (pot-smoking anesthesiologists fighting for legalized heroin) who think rigged-market=free market.

Libertarians; your Party Pot, Porn and Dirty Dealing with Dictators for Greater Personal Profit Margin has left your nuts as impotent as your flaccid pricks.
Adobe Walls
February 14th, 2010 @ 2:15 pm

Did Matt Welch write that all non libertarian conservatives are or might be racists? Based on the comments above and what little I’ve read I feel justified in my conclusion that most libertarians are just preachy anarchists. As a purely academic question the southern states did indeed have the right to leave the Union, however having lost that fight 145 years ago rearguing that fight in the current political arena is a little too retro for my taste.
Adobe Walls
February 14th, 2010 @ 9:15 am

Did Matt Welch write that all non libertarian conservatives are or might be racists? Based on the comments above and what little I’ve read I feel justified in my conclusion that most libertarians are just preachy anarchists. As a purely academic question the southern states did indeed have the right to leave the Union, however having lost that fight 145 years ago rearguing that fight in the current political arena is a little too retro for my taste.
DaveP.
February 14th, 2010 @ 2:18 pm

As a Conservative, I don’t believe taht the .04% of the vote that Liberatrians can bring to the table is worth putting up with their bullshit. Maybe when they move out of their mom’s basement and grow up…
DaveP.
February 14th, 2010 @ 9:18 am

As a Conservative, I don’t believe taht the .04% of the vote that Liberatrians can bring to the table is worth putting up with their bullshit. Maybe when they move out of their mom’s basement and grow up…
Ran / Si Vis Pacem
February 14th, 2010 @ 3:06 pm

“Some of your allies may be given to outbursts of religious, super-rational altruism as they set about rejecting the Divine Federal Government. This does not make them Untouchables. It’ll be OK, Matt.” Dang, that’s good, Smitty! :-)

On the one hand – we’re told that the right is moving libertarian. Strong evidence of this shift is the value-set of movement characters such as Sarah Palin or Michel Bachmann’s, who’s policies align well with those of libertarian candidates such as Rand Paul.

On the other, Welch wouldn’t vote for Palin because she’s, what? Statist? Does Matt offer a clarification of just exactly how a Palin or Bachmann presidency would diminish “human freedom and prosperity”?

Moreover I reject the notion that the right is moving libertarian: Rather, conservatism is forcing the non-libertarian “progressive” components out into harsh sunlight. Tocqueville’s liberty and tyranny are being applied as the metric: Seen plainly, the likes of “conservatives” such as Brooks and Frum resemble Clinton and other statist “progressives” more than they do libertarian conservatives of the Goldwater-Reagan mold.

Evidence of this is that as Bush II showed his statist colors and his Republican congress spent like drunks, Republican majorities evaporated. The Right was always there – it was just being ignored.
Ran / Si Vis Pacem
February 14th, 2010 @ 10:06 am

“Some of your allies may be given to outbursts of religious, super-rational altruism as they set about rejecting the Divine Federal Government. This does not make them Untouchables. It’ll be OK, Matt.” Dang, that’s good, Smitty! :-)

On the one hand – we’re told that the right is moving libertarian. Strong evidence of this shift is the value-set of movement characters such as Sarah Palin or Michel Bachmann’s, who’s policies align well with those of libertarian candidates such as Rand Paul.

On the other, Welch wouldn’t vote for Palin because she’s, what? Statist? Does Matt offer a clarification of just exactly how a Palin or Bachmann presidency would diminish “human freedom and prosperity”?

Moreover I reject the notion that the right is moving libertarian: Rather, conservatism is forcing the non-libertarian “progressive” components out into harsh sunlight. Tocqueville’s liberty and tyranny are being applied as the metric: Seen plainly, the likes of “conservatives” such as Brooks and Frum resemble Clinton and other statist “progressives” more than they do libertarian conservatives of the Goldwater-Reagan mold.

Evidence of this is that as Bush II showed his statist colors and his Republican congress spent like drunks, Republican majorities evaporated. The Right was always there – it was just being ignored.
Ron Jones
February 14th, 2010 @ 8:00 pm

“Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.” Said George Washington

All of my politics (expressed in detail at http://www.jonesfamily.us/politics ) flow from the following simple truism:

The essence of all politics can be expressed as the answer to One. Single. Question.

“When is the use, or the threat of deadly force against your family, your friends, your neighbors, and acquaintances justified?”

If that makes me an extremist in your eyes, then I am proud to wear the label. But remember this…

Every time you support any government spending program, any law, any regulation by a government agency; you are expressing a willingness to kill your friends, family, and fellow citizens who refuse to pay for said initiative.

Who is the statist now?
Ron Jones
February 14th, 2010 @ 3:00 pm

“Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.” Said George Washington

All of my politics (expressed in detail at http://www.jonesfamily.us/politics ) flow from the following simple truism:

The essence of all politics can be expressed as the answer to One. Single. Question.

“When is the use, or the threat of deadly force against your family, your friends, your neighbors, and acquaintances justified?”

If that makes me an extremist in your eyes, then I am proud to wear the label. But remember this…

Every time you support any government spending program, any law, any regulation by a government agency; you are expressing a willingness to kill your friends, family, and fellow citizens who refuse to pay for said initiative.

Who is the statist now?
Adobe Walls
February 14th, 2010 @ 8:53 pm

Now we’re against fire?
Adobe Walls
February 14th, 2010 @ 3:53 pm

Now we’re against fire?
Bob Belvedere
February 14th, 2010 @ 9:54 pm

1) What Ran said.

2) The libertarians have a great chance to be a part of the restoration of our freedoms and liberties, but puritans like Matt Welch are going to sabotage it for them. Good men, like Eric Dondero and Mike Todd, are trying to bridge the conservative/libertarian divide in the interest of our country. We can work together, we must work together. And we can do so, each group, without losing our souls. The example I like to site is on the issue of abortion: conservatives and libertarians can agree that it is an issue that Constitutionally belongs at the state level and, therefore, can work to that end. Once this victory is achieved, then we can battle over the issue in each state of The Union. Mr. Welch seeks nothing less than to maintain his movement on the fringes and hurt the cause of liberty at the same time.
Bob Belvedere
February 14th, 2010 @ 4:54 pm

1) What Ran said.

2) The libertarians have a great chance to be a part of the restoration of our freedoms and liberties, but puritans like Matt Welch are going to sabotage it for them. Good men, like Eric Dondero and Mike Todd, are trying to bridge the conservative/libertarian divide in the interest of our country. We can work together, we must work together. And we can do so, each group, without losing our souls. The example I like to site is on the issue of abortion: conservatives and libertarians can agree that it is an issue that Constitutionally belongs at the state level and, therefore, can work to that end. Once this victory is achieved, then we can battle over the issue in each state of The Union. Mr. Welch seeks nothing less than to maintain his movement on the fringes and hurt the cause of liberty at the same time.
Adobe Walls
February 15th, 2010 @ 12:39 am

How does one work with those who believe recognizing that there will be a state makes one a statist. In their intolerance they remind me of progressives. As far as I can determine the only broad area of agreement between conservatives and libertarians might be fiscal responsibility, for that matter that’s the only broad area of agreement between libertarians.
Conservatives shouldn’t deny or hide their conservative social values but should emphasize cutting spending, less regulation, free market principals and strong on national security. This worked in VA, NJ and Mass. If someone walked into your dealership wearing work boots with a double bitted ax on his shoulder you’d tell him how tough your trucks are not how pretty. In the Bush administration they questioned prospective DOJ employees about their views on abortion. They should have been asking at treasury and the fed what those folks thought about Keynesian economics. We will not destroy bolshevism trading the white house and congress with the democrats every eight years or so. Once the people start to trust those we elect to not destroy the economy and steal our liberty and personal independence the people will follow on social issues.
Adobe Walls
February 14th, 2010 @ 7:39 pm

How does one work with those who believe recognizing that there will be a state makes one a statist. In their intolerance they remind me of progressives. As far as I can determine the only broad area of agreement between conservatives and libertarians might be fiscal responsibility, for that matter that’s the only broad area of agreement between libertarians.
Conservatives shouldn’t deny or hide their conservative social values but should emphasize cutting spending, less regulation, free market principals and strong on national security. This worked in VA, NJ and Mass. If someone walked into your dealership wearing work boots with a double bitted ax on his shoulder you’d tell him how tough your trucks are not how pretty. In the Bush administration they questioned prospective DOJ employees about their views on abortion. They should have been asking at treasury and the fed what those folks thought about Keynesian economics. We will not destroy bolshevism trading the white house and congress with the democrats every eight years or so. Once the people start to trust those we elect to not destroy the economy and steal our liberty and personal independence the people will follow on social issues.
From the Mariott, Joyousness Resounds Anew : The Other McCain
February 20th, 2010 @ 12:47 pm

[…] the Beltway offered us the rare double linkage.Around the Sphere links us.The Ubervu thread.Matt Welch: MehChuck Cross:As a Republican who believes in liberty, but is not a libertarian (capital L or […]