The Decline of the Right: Pt. 2

Jesse Walker | January 3, 2005

The Lew Rockwell essay that I linked to this morning has sparked an interesting discussion over at Liberty & Power, with William Marina penning an extended critique of the piece. I don't want to get bogged down in summarizing what everyone has said so far, but I have three points to add to the discussion.

First: With only a few exceptions, such as Bob Barr, the Republican leadership was not particularly skeptical of government power in the '90s. There was a tremendous skepticism at the grassroots, though, and the politicians fell in line with their rhetoric and, occasionally, their behavior.

Second: That grassroots skepticism hasn't died. There are more colors in the country than red and blue, and there still are many libertarian-leaning conservatives out there. But a decade ago they were driving the debate; today they've been marginalized. What you might call the talk-radio right -- the folks who listen to Limbaugh, post to Free Republic, and serve as political troops for the GOP -- have generally moved in the direction described by Rockwell.

Third: One reason this shift was possible, as Rockwell argues, is because the grassroots conservative movement personalized its politics, becoming less anti-government than anti-Clinton. Rather than opposing the imperial presidency, activists demanded a president who wouldn't "stain" the office. There's nothing wrong with Clinton-bashing per se, of course, but there is something wrong with losing your perspective.

What Rockwell didn't mention, and perhaps doesn't see, is that the same dynamic is now at work on the left. If the Bob Barr conservatives (and, further out, the militia conservatives) have been tamed or marginalized by Team Red, then the Ralph Nader leftists (and, further out, the Seattle leftists) are being tamed or marginalized by Team Blue. The chief instrument of this shift has been an excessive focus on George W. Bush, just as the other rebellion was hobbled by an excessive focus on Bill Clinton. Again, there's nothing wrong with Bush-bashing per se, but not if you lose your perspective.

If John Kerry had been elected in November, the grassroots ferment that fed MoveOn and the Dean campaign would have lost its anti-authoritarian edge as quickly as the talk-radio right did. Indeed, beneath their sometimes radical rhetoric and their dark theories of conspiracy, the rebels were already tamed. That's what "Anybody But Bush" meant in practice.

Comments

|1.3.05 @ 12:48PM|#

Having, during the '90s, hung out mainly with rabid anti-Clinton conservatives, and now having regular contact with rabidly anti-Bush liberals, I can see no material difference between the two camps. Both are almost entirely based on ad hominem attacks on personalities rather than ideologies. Both have lost sight of their principles, if indeed the folks doing the shouting ever had any clear-cut ones to begin with. And both are doing a tremendous disservice to the country as a whole.

|1.3.05 @ 1:01PM|#

"What Rockwell didn't mention, and perhaps doesn't see, is that the same dynamic is now at work on the left. If the Bob Barr conservatives (and, further out, the militia conservatives) have been tamed or marginalized by Team Red, then the Ralph Nader leftists (and, further out, the Seattle leftists) are being tamed or marginalized by Team Blue."

Very sharp, Mr. Walker. Very sharp.

|1.3.05 @ 1:05PM|#

One difference between the left and right on this; you won't find people on the left praising Clinton the way you find people on the right praising Bush II and Reagan. For people who are ostensibly anti-big gov't, the right wingers have a remarkable tendency to form cults of personality around their chief executives.

The only reason we liberals like Clinton now is because he gives Republicans fits of apoplexy (to the extent that a handful have tried to get him impeached retroactively).

Matt Welch|1.3.05 @ 1:06PM|#

I'd guess, without actually looking at any data, that the "Ralph Nader leftists" and "Seattle leftists" were one and the same in 2004, in terms of who voted for the guy. And further, I'd bet a sea turtle or two that the vast majority of voters who stormed the streets in Seattle 1999 voted for Kerry this time round. Certainly, most 2000 Naderites I know (by which I mean those who actively worked on or for his campaign) voted Kerry in 2004, for ABB reasons.

Jesse Walker|1.3.05 @ 1:09PM|#

Yeah, the Naderites were out in force in Seattle, too. The distinction I was ineptly attempting to convey was between the folks oriented towards a third party and the more radical street-action people.

fyodor|1.3.05 @ 1:12PM|#

If John Kerry had been elected in November, the grassroots ferment that fed MoveOn and the Dean campaign would have lost its anti-authoritarian edge as quickly as the talk-radio right did.

But when anti-authoritarianism means disgust and horror that we still don't have nationalized health care, what does it amount to? Just the perennial paradox of the left.

gaius marius|1.3.05 @ 1:15PM|#

For people who are ostensibly anti-big gov't, the right wingers have a remarkable tendency to form cults of personality around their chief executives.

i submit that this is the influence of hegel and nietzsche, mr borok, whose philosophy has never been sufficiently overcome on the american right despite the european disasters.

drf|1.3.05 @ 1:15PM|#

"But when anti-authoritarianism means disgust and horror that we still don't have nationalized health care, what does it amount to? Just the perennial paradox of the left."

might this be one of the roots of why this is an interesting issue? is the paradox of the left more or less striking than the hypocricsy of the one-time knights who said "neeh!", i mean one-time small government people?

just as it's striking when a moralist gets caught with affairs, etc., it's striking when those who rail against "big government" are supporting it.

Warren|1.3.05 @ 1:18PM|#

Wha-tever. The fact is, that Reagan did steep his rhetoric in smaller government platitudes, and the Gingrich revolution swept into power on a small government platform. Furthermore, they actually succeeded in making significant progress and got the ball rolling in the right direction. Even 2000 candidate George W Bush paid homage to the party line.

What is so staggering is that:
1) W sold out so totally, completely, and immediately upon taking office (steal tariffs and farm bill were pre 911).
2) He seemingly paid no penalty for this blatant betrayal of the small government and humble foreign policy he originally ran on.

Ten years ago the Religious Right still looked like and embarrassing fringe element that the Republican party couldn't afford to lose. Now it looks like they run the whole goddamned country.

gaius marius|1.3.05 @ 1:25PM|#

Now it looks like they run the whole goddamned country.

mr warren, i think there's actually a handful of nietzschean neoconservatives who bargained/conned the religious right and the libertarian-cum-clinton-hating conservatives into elevating them post-9/11. the fragility of democracy, as it were, in a system that doesn't properly vet its officials anymore.

|1.3.05 @ 1:26PM|#

Yes, Warren but remember "W" is still a Christain-let`s not lose our "perspective".

|1.3.05 @ 1:31PM|#

lol... gaius, can we assume that was your one-hegel-reference-per-thread?

Anyhow, there's one thing being ignored here and in the "decline-of-the-right" thread below, and that's the human affection for self-delusion. You all can continue to chase the polity around shouting "hypocrisy! paradox!" with the efficacy of a WWF referee, but the truth is this: The right will never admit that spending=taxes when it's spending on military doodads or moral crusading. The left will never admit that social handouts hamstring economic prosperity which alleviates poverty. And neither side will admit that each regulation takes an ever so small bite out of our liberty.

|1.3.05 @ 1:35PM|#

One difference between the left and right on this; you won't find people on the left praising Clinton the way you find people on the right praising Bush II and Reagan.

Clearly you are not hanging around the right 'people on the left.'

|1.3.05 @ 1:43PM|#

Gaius,

"...whose philosophy has never been sufficiently overcome on the american right despite the european disasters. "

Perhaps because that philosophy has never been entirely understood by it's US practitioners, being usurped and applied in a distinctly different context.

|1.3.05 @ 1:45PM|#

Anyone else get the feeling that Barnes and Noble is down at least one Hegel tome in the last few days?

fyodor|1.3.05 @ 1:46PM|#

Josh,

My experience from being deeply embedded amidst leftists is that they praise Clinton for his charisma and political skills and his ability to connect to "the people", yet they're very critical of many of his policies, particularly his free trade treaty-making, and they generally consider him (along with the entire Democratic Party) essentially a corporate dupe.

|1.3.05 @ 1:47PM|#

One difference between the left and right on this; you won't find people on the left praising Clinton the way you find people on the right praising Bush II and Reagan.

This is a completely non-sarcastic question:

Do you live in the United States?

|1.3.05 @ 1:51PM|#

Fyodor, that sounds like a different kind of left than the everyday Democratic partisan left that's the corollary of the Bush/Reagan-loving right.

fyodor|1.3.05 @ 1:56PM|#

Fyodor, that sounds like a different kind of left than the everyday Democratic partisan left that's the corollary of the Bush/Reagan-loving right.

I think it's the left that Jesse is talking about. What it corresponds to on the right I shall leave to others.

|1.3.05 @ 1:59PM|#

I dunno. Clinton's admired for his rhetorical and political skills in connecting with people and all that crap. I never noticed anyone make a claim that he was some sort of all-wise Leader, sitting at the Right Hand of Jesus Himself, infinitely wise in his infallible Edicts. It's like they want a Byzantine Emperor rather than a president. It's positively oriental.

|1.3.05 @ 2:00PM|#

Jesse Walker,

Actually, I thought you were referring to EF!ers and other like-minded people, who have on their mind more than just "street action."

Warren,

Reagan did steep his rhetoric in smaller government platitudes...

With a quarter that will get you a phone call.

...and the Gingrich revolution swept into power on a small government platform.

Gingrich's "CWA" only dealt with in his words "60% issues" and purposefully avoided issues like abortion, school prayer, etc.; you know, the issues that many red staters would like to force down my throat (e.g., forcing me to pay for teacher-led prayer in public schools).

Much of the "CWA" dealt with how the Congress operated; here are its first eight provisions:

FIRST, require all laws that apply to the rest of the country also apply equally to the Congress;
SECOND, select a major, independent auditing firm to conduct a comprehensive audit of Congress for waste, fraud or abuse;
THIRD, cut the number of House committees, and cut committee staff by one-third;
FOURTH, limit the terms of all committee chairs;
FIFTH, ban the casting of proxy votes in committee;
SIXTH, require committee meetings to be open to the public;
SEVENTH, require a three-fifths majority vote to pass a tax increase;
EIGHTH, guarantee an honest accounting of our Federal Budget by implementing zero base-line budgeting.

These were the first issues to be dealt with; the 104th Congress was supposed to bring to the floor the following bills within its first one hundred days:

1. THE FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY ACT: A balanced budget/tax limitation amendment and a legislative line-item veto to restore fiscal responsibility to an out- of-control Congress, requiring them to live under the same budget constraints as families and businesses.

2. THE TAKING BACK OUR STREETS ACT: An anti-crime package including stronger truth-in- sentencing, "good faith" exclusionary rule exemptions, effective death penalty provisions, and cuts in social spending from this summer's "crime" bill to fund prison construction and additional law enforcement to keep people secure in their neighborhoods and kids safe in their schools.

3. THE PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY ACT: Discourage illegitimacy and teen pregnancy by prohibiting welfare to minor mothers and denying increased AFDC for additional children while on welfare, cut spending for welfare programs, and enact a tough two-years-and-out provision with work requirements to promote individual responsibility.

4. THE FAMILY REINFORCEMENT ACT: Child support enforcement, tax incentives for adoption, strengthening rights of parents in their children's education, stronger child pornography laws, and an elderly dependent care tax credit to reinforce the central role of families in American society.

5. THE AMERICAN DREAM RESTORATION ACT: A $500 per child tax credit, begin repeal of the marriage tax penalty, and creation of American Dream Savings Accounts to provide middle class tax relief.

6. THE NATIONAL SECURITY RESTORATION ACT: No U.S. troops under U.N. command and restoration of the essential parts of our national security funding to strengthen our national defense and maintain our credibility around the world.

7. THE SENIOR CITIZENS FAIRNESS ACT: Raise the Social Security earnings limit which currently forces seniors out of the work force, repeal the 1993 tax hikes on Social Security benefits and provide tax incentives for private long-term care insurance to let Older Americans keep more of what they have earned over the years.

8. THE JOB CREATION AND WAGE ENHANCEMENT ACT: Small business incentives, capital gains cut and indexation, neutral cost recovery, risk assessment/cost-benefit analysis, strengthening the Regulatory Flexibility Act and unfunded mandate reform to create jobs and raise worker wages.

9. THE COMMON SENSE LEGAL REFORM ACT: "Loser pays" laws, reasonable limits on punitive damages and reform of product liability laws to stem the endless tide of litigation.

10. THE CITIZEN LEGISLATURE ACT: A first-ever vote on term limits to replace career politicians with citizen legislators.

gaius marius|1.3.05 @ 2:01PM|#

Perhaps because that philosophy has never been entirely understood by it's US practitioners, being usurped and applied in a distinctly different context.

its possible, mr wellfellow -- but the postwar development of betrand russell might have been enough to explain it and its horrible implications, if we were truly interested in something other than byronic unhappiness.

Anyone else get the feeling that Barnes and Noble is down at least one Hegel tome in the last few days?

lol -- not so!

|1.3.05 @ 2:01PM|#

Josh, Mark framed that argument precisely - liberals don't worship Clinton, but they love the fits he gives conservatives.

Here are the deific totems of the right -
- Bush/Reagan symbolism. There are "Viva la Reagan revolution" t-shirts and an entire line of buttons and shirts based upon Bush's middle initial. Stuff like "W: The President."

- Comparisons between Bush/Reagan and historical figures. Do a google for Bush + Churchill sometime.

- Heroic Bush/Reagan imagery. Without fishing for links, I can remember a National Review cover praising Bush "the conquerer," a Weekly Standard cover of Bush the "master and commander," and a weird symphony of FreeRepublic posts dedicated to awesome Bush-as-badass photos, culminating in a video synching up Bush footage to a Johnny Cash song.

I'm unaware of anything like this for Clinton. Not "J" stickers, not video tributes, not essays preemptively ranking Clinton among the great men of history after he bombed some shit. The liberal attitude toward Clinton is still very mixed, only turning positive when one brings up James Rogan or Newt Gingrich and fond memories of them getting shellacked.

drf|1.3.05 @ 2:06PM|#

careful, GG:

you might just expose many who supported the CWA back then... :)

and how many of those first 100 days planks made it beyond the house?

how many were actually then abandoned by the same one-time supporters?

cool list, thanks!
drf

|1.3.05 @ 2:09PM|#

Perhaps because that philosophy has never been entirely understood by it's US practitioners, being usurped and applied in a distinctly different context.

Back when philosophy had anything to do with public life in America, this was our grand contribution. Take whatever works.

Mix up a cynical version of that with the scary neo-Hegelianism (yea I said it) of Leo Strauss, and you've basically described the ideology behind the neo-conservative ascension.

|1.3.05 @ 2:09PM|#

Yeah, the Naderites were out in force in Seattle, too. The distinction I was ineptly attempting to convey was between the folks oriented towards a third party and the more radical street-action people.

Comment by: Jesse Walker at January 3, 2005 01:09 PM


Jesse,

There aren't as many "radical street-action people" in Seattle as you'd think. The WTO "riots" were, by far, the exception rather than the rule. Mostly, Washingtonians (and Seattleities in particular) are very passive when it comes to politics, despite thier shouting and crying.

WSDave

|1.3.05 @ 2:20PM|#

Shorter Lew Rockwell:

Resist whoever is in power.

|1.3.05 @ 2:21PM|#

drf,

The list is directly from the House's website:

http://www.house.gov/house/Contract/CONTRACT.html

Nearly all of the provisions "CWA" did make it to the House Floor, however many of them failed to pass a vote in the Senate (or the House - see the term limits bill) or had large enough majorities to overcome a Clinton veto.

|1.3.05 @ 2:29PM|#

The most poignant thing I remember about Newt Gingrich was his proposal to hand out laptop computers to those on AFDC, etc.

BTW, Karl Zinsmeister was bitching about the same thing in 1997: http://www.taemag.com/issues/articleid.16119/article_detail.asp

gaius marius|1.3.05 @ 2:31PM|#

Shorter Lew Rockwell: Resist whoever is in power.

lol, mr trainwreck -- rockwell has his own issues, to be sure, but imo he's spot-on to be concerned with american fascism. the history of consequences concerning political hero worship among the demos is not good.

drf|1.3.05 @ 2:38PM|#

thanks, GG - does anybody remember the story of newt getting a hummer in his car where he gave the passer by a loopy grin? kinda funny story...

so when do we get the final proposal for the william j lepetomane gambling casino for the insane?

The Lonewacko Blog|1.3.05 @ 2:44PM|#

I've seen a lot of lefties praising Clinton or fawning over him, but I haven't seen much Clinton-, Pelosi-, or (Teddy) Kennedy-worship.

For examples of Bush worship, see BlogsForBush.com, PoliPundit.com, this , Bush and Nordic myth, or the examples provided here.

Pardon my negativism, but is it possible to be opposed to not just "liberals" but also to both libertarians and BushBots?

|1.3.05 @ 2:46PM|#

I've met a few people who trust Bush simply because he's (supposedly) a good Christian. I haven't encountered people with comparable trust in Clinton.

I have encountered plenty of people from both sides who blindly support "their side" because "the other side" is "completely wrong", but I haven't encountered much personal reverence for Clinton.

In summary, tribal loyalty is nothing new in the US, but worshipping the chief has been taken to new heights recently.

drf|1.3.05 @ 2:48PM|#

"Pardon my negativism, but is it possible to be opposed to not just "liberals" but also to both libertarians and BushBots?"

-- pat buchanan, maybe? some sort of paleoconservative?

The Lonewacko Blog|1.3.05 @ 2:54PM|#

Sorry, those links were messed up. Here they are:

A BeldarBlog Classic: Dubya's got hat hair from his Stetson.

Bush and Nordic myth: Dubya slayed the evil dragon of Aragnook.

Should conservatives support Kerry? (note the fun comments from the crossposts to command-post and redstate)

All links checked and double-checked.

|1.3.05 @ 2:56PM|#

I know what Anne Manning said about the blowjobs she gave to Newt:

"We had oral sex... He prefers that modus operandi because then he can say, 'I never slept with her.'"

|1.3.05 @ 3:00PM|#

Also, as a side note, I've met a number of Southern Baptists (Newt and Clinton are of that church) and Church of Christers who don't view oral sex as "real sex" and I've always wondered if this particular hypocrisy is typical or atypical amongst Christian sects.

The Lonewacko Blog|1.3.05 @ 3:02PM|#

More fun!

drf|1.3.05 @ 3:05PM|#

c'est ca! merci bien.

|1.3.05 @ 3:15PM|#

The Lonewacko Blog,

What specifically - besides the open borders issue - do you have against libertarians? Free trade? Some social issue?

|1.3.05 @ 3:17PM|#

drf,

Associating someone with Buchanan is an insult IMHO. :)

|1.3.05 @ 3:18PM|#

"We had oral sex... He prefers that modus operandi because then he can say, 'I never slept with her.'"

yeah, chicks are always falling for that line.

Oddly, that's not the first time I've heard fellatio described as a "modus operandi."

|1.3.05 @ 3:22PM|#

"I've met a few people who trust Bush simply because he's (supposedly) a good Christian."

actually, back before the 2000 elections, my wife's grandmother died. at the wake, my wife's aunt cornered me in the kitchen - when someone's sons are backing out of the room you know you picked the wrong time to get a soda - and proceeds to tell me she's voting for GWB because he's born again and can be trusted.

i nod, since there's not much else to say there.

then she leans in and goes "do you know why they call al gore a tree hugger?"

i offer that it's because of his environmentalist leanings.

"no," she says. "it's because those people believe they get energy from plants by touching them."

"oh."

"yes." she sits back, satisfied perhaps because she had visibly blown this young heathen's mind.

"well, wouldn't that be a reason to vote for him? in the case of a national crisis you could put ferns in the oval office and save the day!"

she was a lot more fun back then. she's all semi-normal now.

|1.3.05 @ 3:33PM|#

dhex,

You know, you get energy from plants by eating them, which would presumably include touching them (as in putting them in your mouth, which would include them "touching" your lips, etc.). :)

|1.3.05 @ 3:40PM|#

WE ARE ALL TREE HUGGERS!!!!

Ed|1.3.05 @ 4:24PM|#

The only reason Dems are not worshiping their "leaders" is because they currently have none. I mean, there is no special reason for liking (or disliking) Kerry. Clinton was indeed praised and still is as a Dem leader as much as Bush IMHO. Can you imagine if Dean had won? Talk about yelling.

|1.3.05 @ 4:27PM|#

I've seen a lot of lefties praising Clinton or fawning over him, but I haven't seen much Clinton-, Pelosi-, or (Teddy) Kennedy-worship.

Funny you should say this. I was sitting in a local dive bar, inhabited mostly by union-types, when I heard the following sentences:

"Teddy Kennedy is one of the greatest men to ever serve the United States of America. I put him up there with Bill & Hillary and LBJ."

I am not exaggerating when I say that I almost fell off of my barstool.

|1.3.05 @ 4:35PM|#

Uh, yeah, Liberals HEART Clinton. Just look at "The American Prospect," "Mother Jones," "The New Republic," "The New York Times..." The liberal media could barely manage to remain polite when discussing Clinton, and people like Ed want to claim that he was worshipped like Bush or Reagan?

I'm continually amazed by the nonsense right wingers are able to convince themselves of.

|1.3.05 @ 4:44PM|#

to be fair...

i work with some liberals who definitely have some deep love for the clintons, especially hillary.

it's not quite the group corpse fellation that we saw when reagan was promoted to glory, but it's fairly jarring.

drf|1.3.05 @ 4:44PM|#

GG:

you're right about associations with PB. but the anti liberal, anti libertarian, anti bushbots could be a good broad brush, non-specific buchananite starting point. you know, against the Liberals, for the petit bourgoisie, against the "big capitalists". for good, solid traditional values including the church. feeling the need to learn a foreign language is a terrible waste of time... the whole nine meters :)

The Lonewacko Blog|1.3.05 @ 4:44PM|#

What specifically - besides the open borders issue - do you have against libertarians?

Their choice of leaders. I mean, Badnarik, Ferret Guy and Mr. Druid, and all the rest are pretty funny. But, they just don't have that long-lasting, iconic funny I'm seeking.

|1.3.05 @ 4:53PM|#

The Lonewacko Blog,

You know there is a difference between the LP and libertarians right? That's why I used little "l" libertarian in my post.

Let me state my question once again:

What specifically - besides the open borders issue - do you have against libertarians?

dhex,

I like plants; especially the ones with tasty parts. :)

Jesse Walker|1.3.05 @ 4:58PM|#

One last clarification about "Seattle leftists": I wasn't just referring to riots, and I wasn't just referring to Seattle (which, as a former Seattlite, I agree is pretty passive when there's no WTO in town). I was thinking of groups like the Ruckus Society, the Direct Action Network, and the Black Bloc, and the whole traveling carnival that they brought not just to Seattle but to D.C., Genoa, etc.

|1.3.05 @ 5:44PM|#

dhex - I was told by my mother-in-law that God wanted Bush to win. Being the good son-in-law
(and more importantly, the good husband) I know when to just let it slide.

|1.3.05 @ 5:47PM|#

Brett-

Exactly! The left is very good at tribal loyalty (arguably even better at it than the right) but lately the right has been really good at "Worship the Leader". How many people thought that Clinton was on a divine mission? Sure, he did get women to kneel before him, but that was totally different.

|1.3.05 @ 6:11PM|#

Unlike God, I did not endorse a candidate.

Kevin Carson|1.3.05 @ 6:37PM|#

I'm not sure so much has changed since 1994. Newt Gingrich, I believe, was using the terms "national greatness conservative" even back then. And a great deal of the ostensible "devolution" of power to the states was little more than a delegation to them of some administrative autonomy in disbursing federal grants. The "new federalism" of 1994 involved nothing that couldn't have been done for pragmatic reasons even in a unitary state like the UK or France, in which all the powers of the counties or provinces are delegated from the central government. Every time I heard Dole read from his "Tenth Amendment" pocket card in 1996, I wished I could ask him exactly which enumerated power in Article I Section 8 bestowed authority for his much-vaunted food stamps program and Americans with Disabilities Act.

In the foreign policy realm, I think the difference is not necessarily a shift toward flag-waving and jingoism. Those have been hallmarks of the New Right ever since the Democrats stopped being the party of the imperial presidency and foreign policy activism 35-odd years ago. A reflexive rallying around the "Commander-in-Chief" was a GOP trademark under Reagan. The difference, rather, is the sheer intensity of the war fever since 911, and the escalating eliminationist rhetoric and threats of violence to dissenters that are chronicled by David Neiwert (aka Orcinus).

Mr. Marius, I think that old philosopher Alexander Hamilton is a greater influence than either Hegel or Nietzsche. For most of the twentieth century, the GOP has been about using Jeffersonian rhetoric to sell Hamiltonian policies to Main Street America. They adopted it as a form of brand differentiation during the New Deal, when the national Democratic party cut itself off from the last vestiges of its heritage of being the party of small government and decentralism.

Since the 1930s, the Democrats' arguments for activist government have been recycled from the Hamiltonians, Whigs, and 19th century Republicans. Seeing a new market niche, the GOP adopted the ironic pose as the new party of small government. But when it came to corporate interests, they continued to support a reading of the Commerce Clause wide enough to drive a truck through. They were just able to pose as decentralists, relatively speaking, because the New Deal Democrats decided to out-Hamilton the Hamiltonians.

Warren|1.3.05 @ 6:37PM|#

Re: lefty's deification of Clinton.

I have to say I find the left's adulation of WJC just as obnoxious as the right's over RR. It's true that there is a different character to the homage. However, I don't see how one can claim that bestowing the title of "First Black President" can be considered anything less than heedless veneration.

Christina|1.3.05 @ 6:40PM|#

I heartily disagree with most posters here who ascribe some sort of extreme political views (right or left) on most voters. The simple fact is that the vast majority of people vote for the guy they dislike the least. I met very few true Bush supporters during this past election. What I did see were a lot of folks who thought he was a marginally better choice than Kerry, and vice versa.

I also find it laughable to read how right-wing Bush is. He campaigned in 2000 as a Compassionate Conservative. Didn't that raise a few red flags among libertarians? It was just like Clinton, the New Democrat. A political ploy (or true ideological bent, I can't tell) to try and capture as many median voters as possible. The fact is most people are glad the US is capitalist, to a point. They want a few government safeguards here and there, either socially or economically (or both) and whoever can deliver that rhetoric in the most pleasing way wins the election.

In the end folks who are truly partisan and know who they will vote for before the candidates are determined are really just voting against the factions they fear. For Liberals they are Christians and Corporations. For Conservatives they are Hedonists and Hippies. For libertarians it is whichever of those groups seems to be getting the most of their agenda accomplished. As a libertarian I find the most pressing job we have is to unrelentingly question the Republican and Democratic focus on who is in power as opposed to the power structure itself.

Jesse Walker|1.3.05 @ 6:51PM|#

In the foreign policy realm, I think the difference is not necessarily a shift toward flag-waving and jingoism. Those have been hallmarks of the New Right ever since the Democrats stopped being the party of the imperial presidency and foreign policy activism 35-odd years ago.

Yeah, but there was a libertarian/populist/isolationist insurrection in the '90s, even if it didn't have much long-term effect on the party or its leadership. Kind of like the New Left influence on the Democrats in the '70s. The '94 Congress, with its radical backbenchers and pseudo-radical leadership, might best be understood as a Republican counterpart to the post-Watergate Congress of 1974.

The Lonewacko Blog|1.3.05 @ 6:55PM|#

The Lonewacko Blog has issued the following statement:

"The Lonewacko Blog has some libertarian sympathies and we believe some libertarian ideas have some worth. However, most libertarians and Libertarians take it much too far and tend to favor some kind of feudalism or anarchy. While The Lonewacko Blog does not favor a giant, warm, and comforting welfare state, we recognize that modern reality demands some kind of fairly large government. Thank you for your interest."

|1.3.05 @ 7:04PM|#

The Lonewacko Blog,

Thank you for dodging my question for a second time. I don't think I need to ask you the same question a third time since its quite obvious that you are unwilling to answer it.

|1.3.05 @ 7:13PM|#

The Lonewacko Blog,

BTW, your blog sucks. Which of course why you appear to get few (if any) visitors and why you have to come here and prattle on about your anti-immigration fantasies.

Kevin Carson|1.3.05 @ 7:30PM|#

Jesse,

I wonder, though, if that isolationism was more an example of reflexive anti-Clintonism than of a shift in principle. The fact that Clinton's wars tended to be the kind of nation-building exercises that Mother Jones defended as "progressive" interventionism left the GOP with an escape clause for reverting to full-blown jingoism when a war involved "real national security interests."

|1.3.05 @ 7:40PM|#

Give the devil his due, Kevin. Republicans were solidly opposed to "world's policeman" missions since the end of World War II, including during the Cold War. It was their activism towards the Soviet Union that was the departure from their usual stance, not their opposition to Mrs. Albright's war.

|1.3.05 @ 8:18PM|#

One difference between the left and right on this; you won't find people on the left praising Clinton the way you find people on the right praising Bush II and Reagan. For people who are ostensibly anti-big gov't, the right wingers have a remarkable tendency to form cults of personality around their chief executives.

Josh, Mark framed that argument precisely - liberals don't worship Clinton, but they love the fits he gives conservatives.

Uh, yeah, Liberals HEART Clinton. Just look at "The American Prospect," "Mother Jones," "The New Republic," "The New York Times..." The liberal media could barely manage to remain polite when discussing Clinton, and people like Ed want to claim that he was worshipped like Bush or Reagan?

It's not hard to find liberals who will fawn all over Clinton and view him (though not quite in such terms) as a great crusader against the conservative hordes. It's not hard to find conservatives who bitch - loudly - about the clear fact that Bush isn't conservative. It's also not hard to find conservatives who gleefully enjoy the frothing, impotent rage of his detractors.

Partisans just tend have blind spots in these areas. It's encouraging to believe that people who agree with you are, by and large, reasonable folks making clear-headed, rational decisions. It's also encouraging to believe that those who don't agree with you are irrational and swayed by baser motivations. Folks just tend to filter out and downplay all the nitwits on their side and the brighter people on the other side.

|1.3.05 @ 9:02PM|#

I'm pretty familiar with the nitwittery on my side of the fence, Eric.5, and I can assure you, a widespread lionization of Bill Clinton, comparable to that lavished on George Bush or Ronald Reagan, is not a particularly common occurance.

|1.3.05 @ 9:06PM|#

Then I'll just come out and say you're full of it, Joe.

|1.3.05 @ 9:31PM|#

However, most libertarians and Libertarians take it much too far and tend to favor some kind of feudalism or anarchy.

Nope. Just the loudest and most obnoxious ones. Much like all of the GOP isn't holy-rolling bible-thumpers.

MOST libertarians just want to be left alone.

|1.3.05 @ 9:41PM|#

One difference between the left and right on this; you won't find people on the left praising Clinton the way you find people on the right praising Bush II and Reagan. For people who are ostensibly anti-big gov't, the right wingers have a remarkable tendency to form cults of personality around their chief executives.

Posted by Mark Borok at January 3, 2005 01:05 PM

Have any conservatives offered George W. Bush a blow job?

http://www.mrc.org/cyberalerts/1998/cyb19980707.asp

CyberAlert. Tracking Media Bias Since 1996
Tuesday July 7, 1998 (Vol. Three; No. 106)

"I'd be happy to give him [oral sex] just to thank him for keeping abortion legal," boasted former Time magazine White House correspondent Nina Burleigh about Bill Clinton. She made her offer known to Washington Post media reporter Howard Kurtz when he called to discuss a piece Burleigh penned in the July/August Mirabella magazine detailing her lust for Clinton.

Titled "King of Hearts," the two-page article carries this subhead: "Former White House reporter Nina Burleigh thought she was beyond being seduced by a man's power, his status, his job. Then she played cards with the President on Air Force One." The article recounts her encounter with Clinton last year on a trip he took to Jasper, Arkansas for a funeral. At the time, Kurtz noted, she had left Time but was filling in on the trip as a "contract writer" for the newsweekly.

Prompted by the July 6 Kurtz story, I brought out my repressed feminine side and bought Mirabella. While I'm still looking forward to reading the article titled "Thigh Anxiety: Cellulite's New Enemy," I did manage to get through Burleigh's story and asked MRC intern Stacey Felzenberg to type into WordPerfect some of the more illuminating passages. Kurtz had room for only a few sentences from Burleigh's piece, so even if you've seen his story most of this will be fresh to you:

"....I hadn't expected to be so near Clinton that summer day. I was dressed for hot, humid Washington. My hair had been whipped into knots while waiting on the tarmac and was restrained in messy braids. I was wearing a very short, green Betsey Johnson seersucker suit, sandals, and no stockings -- probably just the kind of outfit Clinton's former Deputy Chief-of-Staff, Evelyn Lieberman, would have sent an intern home to change out of lickety-split. My knees were scarred from a recent bike wreck. Bare legs still offend Washington propriety, and I now understand why: You'll never know when you'll need to protect your modesty, and perhaps your chastity, around a powerful man....

Enough with the set-up, now to the good stuff as she describes what transpired after she was asked to be the fourth for a game of hearts with Clinton and Bruce Lindsey. (She doesn't identify the other player):

"The President's foot lightly, and presumably accidentally, brushed mine once under the table. His hand touched my wrist while he was dealing the cards. When I got up and shook his hand at the end of the game, his eyes wandered over to my bike-wrecked, naked legs. And slowly it dawned on me as I walked away: He found me attractive."

Are you a female with two breasts, two legs and under age 40?

As her narrative continues, note the condescending evaluation performed by Burleigh the feminist. Men can ogle her if they are powerful, but the gaze better not emanate "from a man of lesser stature." Construction workers beware.

"No doubt the President's lawyers and spin doctors would say I wishfully imagined that long, appreciative look, just as all those other women have fantasized their more explicitly sexual encounters with Clinton. But we all know when we're being ogled. The weird thing was that I didn't mind. There was a time when the hormones of indignant feminism raged in my veins. An open gaze like that, at least from a man of lesser stature, would have annoyed me. But that evening, I had the opposite reaction. I felt incandescent. It was riveting to know that the President had appreciated my legs, scarred as they were. If he had asked me to continue the game of hearts back in his room at the Jasper Holiday Inn, I would have been happy to go there and see what happened. At the time, that seemed quite possible. It took several hours and a few drinks in the steaming and now somehow romantic Arkansas night to shake the intoxicated state in which I had been quite willing to let myself be ravished by the President, should he have but asked. I probably wore the mesmerized look I have seen again and again in women after they have met him. The same silly hypnotized gleam was displayed on the cover of Time magazine in Monica Lewinsky's eyes....

"And yet there I was, walking away from a close encounter with the President of the United States, stupefied and vaguely hoping that he'd send an aide over to my hotel room to ask me up for a drink. What is it in some of us, that powerful men make us pliant and willing with a mere glance?...

She concluded by conceding that even a modern feminist will always go for a powerful man:

"I still cling to the faith that there are women of good order who are immune to this stuff. They wear sensible clothes and keep their legs well covered. I trust that Janet Reno, Donna Shalala, and Madeleine Albright are not rendered willing and pliant around Bill Clinton. They don't need to put on his knowledge with his power when they have their own. For the rest of us, a powerful man's admiring gaze is an intimation of all that is inaccessible, and that is the ultimate seduction."

I wonder if Henry Kissinger could turn her on?

In Monday's Washington Post Kurtz summarized his conversation with Burleigh:
"In an interview, Burleigh, now a New York freelancer, said she in no way felt harassed or pressured by the President but that it was 'not unusual for women' to swoon over him. What is unusual, for a journalist, is Burleigh's sexually charged declaration of support for Clinton. 'I'd be happy to give him [oral sex] just to thank him for keeping abortion legal,' she said. [brackets the Post's]

"But Burleigh says she was not 'going easy on him' as a White House correspondent in 1993 and 1994, when she sometimes wrote about the Whitewater scandal, and never thought about his looks at the time. By last year she was a Time contract writer, filling in on the trip to Jasper, Ark."

She may not have gone "easy" on him, but she went hard on his opponents. As the MRC's Tim Graham reminded me, here's a passage from page 180 of his book "Pattern of Deception: The Media Role in the Clinton Presidency," published in 1996:

In the April 11, 1994 Time, reporter Nina Burleigh wrote a story titled "Clintonphobia! Just who are these Clinton haters, and why do they loathe Bill and Hillary with such passion?" Burleigh found the suspects: "Two men who have benefitted as professional Clinton haters are behind-the-scenes activist Floyd Brown and conservative celebrity Rush Limbaugh." After tagging them as haters, Burleigh explained "Both profess not to hate Clinton." But Burleigh ignored them and proceeded to label again: "The Arkansas branch of Clinton haters is led by two attorneys, Sheffield Nelson, who is a Republican candidate for Governor, and the quixotic Cliff Jackson," the former Clinton friend who helped bring out the stories of Arkansas state troopers and Paula Jones.

Burleigh's oddest passage came at the story's end, when she quoted (unlabeled) liberal historian Alan Brinkley. "Brinkley says Clinton is also a victim of a political fact of life: he's on the wrong side of the tolerance fence. 'Liberals tend to value tolerance highly, so there's a greater reluctance to destroy enemies than among the right. Democrats are historically more likely to cooperate with Republican administrations than Republicans with Democratic administrations.'"

|1.3.05 @ 9:46PM|#

Thomas Paine's Goiter,

That cannot be allowed in The Lonewacko's (Lone Wolf?) nanny-state.

|1.3.05 @ 9:47PM|#

I'm pretty familiar with the nitwittery on my side of the fence, Eric.5, and I can assure you, a widespread lionization of Bill Clinton, comparable to that lavished on George Bush or Ronald Reagan, is not a particularly common occurance.

What color is the sky in your world, Joe?

The Lonewacko Blog|1.3.05 @ 11:10PM|#

Anyone have a shopping bag handy?

|1.4.05 @ 12:38AM|#

Count me in as a libertarian happy to take it too far.

- Josh

|1.4.05 @ 9:11AM|#

I gain no pleasure from it, but I am also not in the least embarrassed by unveiling the sleazy connections, the disturbing anti-Americanism, the chumminess with the BHHRG - a mere PR firm for dictatorships, the sickening glee shown by Lew Rockwell at the killing of Pat Tillman, the endorsement of killing American soldiers, the cultish behavior and low scholarly standards, and the sullying of the good name of libertarianism by lewrockwell.com and antiwar.com. Regarding the invocation of the despicable, racist, and oppressive White Citizens Councils, I invoked that group for a reason, because Lew Rockwell, as a Confederate revisionist and revivalist, is holding up the flag of the most detestable institution in American history, chattel slavery. How could one be so enthusiastic about a secession that was organized for the purpose of holding others in slaves? That such a cause is the driving force behind Lew Rockwell explains so much - starting with the complete abandonment of any pretence to favoring liberty. To associate such a cause with the name of a great and brilliant champion of liberty - Ludwig von Mises - is hurtful in the extreme."

(http://www.tomgpalmer.com/archives/016326.php)

|1.4.05 @ 9:23AM|#

"Anyone have a shopping bag handy?"

Paper or plastic? :)

gaius marius|1.4.05 @ 11:57AM|#

Mr. Marius, I think that old philosopher Alexander Hamilton is a greater influence than either Hegel or Nietzsche. For most of the twentieth century, the GOP has been about using Jeffersonian rhetoric to sell Hamiltonian policies to Main Street America. They adopted it as a form of brand differentiation during the New Deal, when the national Democratic party cut itself off from the last vestiges of its heritage of being the party of small government and decentralism.

mr carson, i think the politics were intended to resemble your description -- and are still intended to, as we see by the constant invocation of the constitution by the bush administration in propaganda but not practice -- but there is little that can be called hamiltonian in current republican politics. hamilton was a lockean englishman who saw (as locke did) importance in moderation, and in sharing power between a king and parliament. that is not the modern republican mode.

20th c politics began to change with goldwater in the 1960s, more openly with reagan in the 80s, and have now gone over to something like fascism with the neoconservatives. (its telling that goldwater came to hate what the republican party stood for at the time of his death.) the impulse of goldwater conservatism surely wasn't intended to produce american fascism -- but it was definitely their perhaps unwitting adoption of some romantic elements of fascism to react against what they saw as creeping marxism that has led us to where we are.

i would posit that it seemed a good idea for goldwater to embrace nationalism and hyperindividualism because of the slow, insidious return to influence of hegelian and nietzschean philosophy from the 19th c -- which had been suppressed in a long utilitarian respite following the world wars for obvious reasons -- in forming the public mind in america. what we're seeing in american political development is, i think, simply a return to course of the broader western trend that brought fascism onto the vulnerable, poorly traditioned new states of germany and italy first.

there is interesting scholarship available on hegelianism in america, which dates back to the german immigration. perhaps in this way, it should not be surprising that nationalism is so much more prevalent in the midsection of the nation, which saw so much of the 19th c german influx.

|1.4.05 @ 1:00PM|#

My thesis is libertarian ideas are not popular with right or left precisely because most LIBERTARIANS are out-of-touch kooks obsessed with factions and fractions, litmus-tests, "secret histories" and other commie-esqe nonsense.

As proof, I present this post and thread.

|1.4.05 @ 10:21PM|#

"perhaps in this way, it should not be surprising that nationalism is so much more prevalent in the midsection of the nation, which saw so much of the 19th c german influx."

Nah. Nationalism is most prevalent in the South, which has very little in the way of German ethnicity.

|1.4.05 @ 10:50PM|#

Well, we picked up some Germans down here--I'm (rounding off a bit) half Scottish and half German, and my German ancestors all migrated directly to the South (around 1800). Of course, the German population here was less concentrated than, say, in Minnesota or Wisconsin.

I'm not sure I completely agree with the idea that we're more nationalist than other regions, though I understand your point. People of the more radical persuasion (like some of the Lew Rockwell folks) might agree with you, though I'm not sure their definition of "nation" would jibe with yours :) In all seriousness, I think there's quite a bit of nationalism all around the U.S., even in large metropolitan areas. It just takes different forms--a union supporter sees it in the "Made in the U.S.A." sense, a military interventionist sees it in terms of martial glory, and, well, I'm sure you see my point.

|1.5.05 @ 1:41AM|#

"libertarian ideas are not popular with right or left precisely because most LIBERTARIANS are out-of-touch kooks"
Amen to that!
As a militant centrist, I'm happy to watch the mainstream parties bully their lunatic fringes into submission.
In the Libertarian Party, by contrast, several lunatic fringes rage against each other, chasing away most centrists and all chances of political success.