Question: Who Is the Meat in that Bizarre Jack Abramoff-David Frum Sandwich? Answer: D…

…rew Carey, currently defending medical marijuana at Reason.tv and hosting The Price Is Right and The Power of 10.

The UK's Telegraph has ranked "The most influential U.S. conservatives" and though Drew is not a conservative, there he is riding high in the list. A snippet:

38. JACK ABRAMOFF
Former lobbyist

Currently serving a sentence of five years and 10 months in jail after pleading guilty to charges of corruption and defrauding American-Indian tribes, Abramoff went from being the go-to Republican lobbyist in Washington to "Jack who?" as his former associates sought to deny they knew him.

Ordered to pay restitution of more than $21 million, his case sparked an extensive corruption investigation that led to the conviction of two White House officials, a congressman and nine other lobbyists and congressional aides. The stench of corruption was a key factor in the Republican mid-term elections defeat of 2006. Abramoff's unwelcome - for Republicans - influence will continue into 2008.

39. DREW CAREY
Comedian and actor

A libertarian more than a conservative, Carey, presenter of "Whose Line is it Anyway?", has been coy about any connection to the Republican party -which can be the kiss of death in Hollywood. "Just because I make fun of Democrats doesn't make me a Republican," he quipped recently when asked about his politics.

Has aligned himself with the Reason Foundation, a libertarian think tank which has started an online series called The Drew Carey Project. Held a "smoke-in" in 1998 to defy anti-smoking laws and has spoken out against the Iraq war. Embracing the libertarian label, he said: 'You don't know what you are sometimes until someone puts a name to it."

40. DAVID FRUM
Writer

Canadian journalist and former speechwriter to George W Bush who helped craft the "axis of evil" phrase. An ally of the neo-conservative Richard Perle, he has been a prominent support of the war against terror and a convinced hawk on the Middle East. Prolific blogger on National Review Online.

Has just written a book on the future of conservatism, to be published in December, entitled: Comeback: Conservatism That Can Win Again. An American Enterprise Institute scholar, Frum recently became a foreign policy adviser to Rudy Giuliani and could well return to the White House in a Giuliani administration.

Whole list of cons--and one of liberals, too--here.

For a variation on Drew's quote about not knowing what you are until someone puts a name on it, go to the source--Time--in which he notes:

I never thought I was a libertarian until I picked up Reason magazine and realized I agree with everything they had printed.

More here.

Comments

[Taktix?]

Drew Carey is just a shill for Big Reason.

Oh, wait...

[J sub D]

So the anarchistic, dope smoking, homo loving, atheist, pro-immigration libertarians are CONSERTATIVE. That's news to me. We need a new press agent.

[de stijl]

I wish they hadn't used "Conservative" and "Liberal" because the vast majority of those listed aren't. Left and Right authoritarianism in varying flavors of radicalism.

[Rhywun]

Frum recently became a foreign policy adviser to Rudy Giuliani

So Giuliani would just amount to a third term of GWB? *Shiver*

PS. Saw Drew on TPIR the other day. It was almost surreal.

[Reinmoose]

why is the list only 21 to 100?

[anonymous coward]

"I never thought I was a libertarian until I picked up Reason magazine and realized I agree with everything they had printed."

Same here, although for me it was Hit & Run. God bless the internets.

[Isaac Bartram]

why is the list only 21 to 100?

According to the article they'll publish 1-20 tomorrow.

[Isaac Bartram]

But, I was wondering the same thing.

[Episiarch]

why is the list only 21 to 100?

Because the VRWC and VLWC won't allow the publication of top Illuminati members. Duh.

[Edward]

If Carey has agreed with everything reason has printed, he must be brain dead. He was probably exaggerating.

[Reinmoose]

According to the article they'll publish 1-20 tomorrow.

Oh. Now see.. if I could just read...

[Brandybuck]

The left-right spectrum (as opposed to the authoritarian-libertarian spectrum) can be defined by attitudes towards property. As unapologetic advocates for private property, libertarians are on the right, and thus "conservative".

I remember once talking with a British expat years ago, who accused me of being an evil conservative Reaganite. When I told him I was a libertarian, he exclaimed "You're the ultimate conservative thug!"

[Reinmoose]

Brandybuck -
doesn't being a libertarian mean that you want corporations to rule the world and be able to enslave people? What would save the poor enslaved people?!

[Reinmoose]

(note: I am not communicating my own sentiment, but one that was communicated to me, rather passionately I might add, by someone else)

[John Tabin]

Who was it who argued that conservatism is actually a special type of libertarianism rather than the other way around? I can't remember, but I'm pretty sure it was reprinted in an special anniversary retrospective that Liberty put out.

[Edward]

Here's a great site on libertarianism:

http://www.spectacle.org/897/finkel.html

[iih]

I never thought I was a libertarian until I picked up Reason magazine and realized I agree with everything they had printed.

Certainly applied to me last summer and, even more surprising, very little conflict with my view of my faith (see my url).

[Edward]

From the site:

What Libertarians have the luxury of doing is sitting back and saying "All the problems will be solved if we just let Jesus, err, property into our hearts, err, politics". What they do tactically is to focus on incidents area where the political process is at its worst, and peddle their snake-oil theory, contrasting the gritty reality with their pristine fantasy. Of course the fantasy looks better then!
The reason they get away with this is partly that there is no Libertopia, so we don't have a constant series of rile-'em-up stories to point out where Libertopia is an atrocity. Sometimes I think of writing a fictitious "Dispatches from Libertopia" for this sort of stuff. Such as:

"Today, Judge Rand ruled that the so-called "child-slavery" provision of the standard employment contract between MegaCorp and all employees was valid. As parents have the control of their children until eighteen, the signing-over of their labor until age 18 to MegaCorp was ruled a valid exercise of parental authority. Judge Rand, in his opinion, stated "The government is not to interfere with economic arrangements, absent a showing of fraud or force, as per the Fundamental Law of Libertopia. All parties with the legal right to contract consented, and that is the sole standard of evaluation. The fact that MegaCorp said it would fire any worker who did not agree to this provision is of no consequence, as that is entirely the right of MegaCorp."

"The separate individual child contracts were also ruled to be valid. Although the children were told if they did not sign, Mommy and Daddy would lose their jobs and the whole family might starve, this was regarded as simply the employer's right to hire and fire as he or she sees fit. No force, coercion, or fraud within the meaning of Libertopia Law was applied." Junior Warbucks, a MegaCorp spokesman, said "Do you make your children do chores? What's the difference?"

But of course this can be attacked in various ways, because Libertopia is pure fantasy, and the real-world rarely stacks up well to a fantasy, especially a political one.

A Libertarian can blithely argue that all problems would be solved by private charity, by people of goodwill, or if government would just get out of the way. It's a common tactic:

If there's a problem, our first question is not, "How can government solve this problem," but "What government program must be eliminated to improve this situation?"
Since there's no Libertopia, they never have to admit being in error and to what will happen under their proposed regime. That's a great debating advantage.

[prolefeed]

Did Edward say anything useful in his really long post above? My TrollBan TM software kicked in and scrolled his comments off the screen, unread.

[Reinmoose]

Edward merely quoted another website. However, it was somewhat relevant, so i don't know if it's actually Edward or someone posing as him.

[hale]

So Giuliani would just amount to a third term of GWB? *Shiver*

I predict that Giuliani will be worse than GWB if elected. He's got the same idea that his ideal voters are right-wing authoritarians with a hard-on for "security," but for want of any clear new direction to take the WoT, he'll defend his record by citing the amount of money he's spent on it - which will be HUGE. Excess security funding inevitably goes to "readiness" - paramilitary training and arms for cops, border boondoggles, pork for surveillance companies - and the effectiveness of "readiness" funding is demonstrated with drug convictions. Giuliani's era will be one of surprising brutality on the part of government agents; not to mention a huge side helping of the same elitism and corruption we've come to know and love from the last twenty years of Presidential politics.

[megamerkin]

While there is no Libertopia, I suggest that the USA is one of the most libertarian countries. And we seem pretty successful. So really we're pointing to a successful model and saying, "let's go with more of that."

[Franklin Harris]

Who was it who argued that conservatism is actually a special type of libertarianism rather than the other way around? I can't remember, but I'm pretty sure it was reprinted in an special anniversary retrospective that Liberty put out.

If you want to make yourself dizzy, trying to sort out the historical/ideological links between libertarianism and conservatism is a good way to start.

In the 18th century, libertarianism (i.e., liberalism, as it was then called) started as a reaction to conservatism. That continued on into the 19th century, when socialism started as yet another reaction to conservatism, eventually replacing liberalism as the dominate anti-conservative movement. (This may help explain how more moderate socialists ended up appropriating the term "liberal.")

In the 20 century, with the rise of socialism and fascism, you end up -- in the U.S. and the U.K. -- with an unlikely alliance of conservatives and former liberals (i.e., libertarians or "classical liberals"), made possible by the fact that many of the traditions the conservatives were inclined to protect were, by this point, classical liberal/libertarian traditions.

However, by the late 20th and early 21st centuries, conservatism had become infected by neoconservatism, a Trotskyite-lite philosophy brought about by various schisms on the Left, which I'll not get into here.

As the neocon virus all but replaced conservatism (you'll now find the old conservatism confined to The American Conservative magazine), the alliance with libertarianism became untenable, as all good libertarians have no use for neocon doctrines of "national greatness" and neo-imperialism.

So, now libertarianism is back to making strategic alliances with the anti-war Left, against the neoconservatives, while it's becoming increasingly difficult to make common cause with the conservatives even on economic issues.

One thing: Now that the modern liberals have taken to calling themselves "progressives" (a more historically accurate label, given their policies), can we libertarians go back to being liberals?

[Pro Libertate]

I agree with megamerkin--that's basically my position. Free markets and limited government are good, and I'd like more good.

[Taktix?]

So is Edward doing research in order to debate us? Looking up articles like, "how to beat a libertarian in rhetoric" or something.

At least, I imagine that's the name of this piece, as I will not give the spectacle.org my unique hit.

But it appears to be the classic useless blather piece. It has the trademark "combat real-life examples with vague, sweeping statements and hypothetical situations" argument going.

If this is what you're reading, Edward, I am not surprised you sound like such a fucking idiot...

[VM]

ProGLib is right that the TWISTED MERKIN is right about Howard Johnson being right that Emil Johnson is right!

[iih]

Now that the modern liberals have taken to calling themselves "progressives" (a more historically accurate label, given their policies), can we libertarians go back to being liberals?

I'd go with that.

[MikeP]

Since there's no Libertopia, they never have to admit being in error and to what will happen under their proposed regime. That's a great debating advantage.

Edward highlights a common debating tactic used against libertarians...

Take the wackiest libertarian attitude one can find or imagine. Of the 1000 improvements such a libertarian would recommend, ordered from most modest to most extreme, argue against number 990.

It saves all the trouble of arguing against improvements 1 through 989... you know, the ones that provide higher marginal improvement and that more people would agree with.

[Taktix?]

Now that the modern liberals have taken to calling themselves "progressives" (a more historically accurate label, given their policies), can we libertarians go back to being liberals?

Might as well, my conservative-ass family already calls me that anyway...

[Pro Libertate]

I find it telling that there is a substantial utilitarian faction in libertarianism, not so much in progressive/liberal or conservative thinking.

[james]

Edward is clueless. I thought he was done commenting on Reason. His idiocy is even starting to annoy me.

[JW]

psssst. If you ignore him, he'll go away.

Either that, or start making substantive posts. Whichever....

[Tacos mmm...]

What ended child labor in Britain and America was not governmental action. It was a change in social tolerance for the practice, followed by governmental action. The libertatrian would simply argue that the latter was un-necessary. A group of people sufficiently large enough to pressure a government to change its policies can apply pressure to the corporations directly. As an example, look at what GAP is currently shutting down contracts with almost 140 factories that use child labor in some form, not because governments forced them to do it, but fear of public disapproval and the loss of sales.

[Pro Libertate]

Tacos mmm...,

Which is the major fallacy of people who praise "progressive" legislation. Government action almost always lags behind social and technological trends. And lags substantially. Yet so-called progressives will credit government action, anyway, despite the fact that the action taken was more an effect than a cause.

There are counterexamples, of course. The ending of slavery in the U.S. was inevitable, but government action made it happen sooner.

[Mike Laursen]

If Carey has agreed with everything reason has printed, he must be brain dead. He was probably exaggerating.

You had a nice, brief bit of flamebait going there, then you blew it a couple of comments later.

[hale]

Edward is quoting a fairly old internet rebuttal to libertarianism. If I recall correctly, the form of libertarianism it's attacking is close to Objectivism and, needless to say, a very different beast from the kind developed upon in and around this publication.

In addition to that, the item he's quoting has a couple of basic problems. For just a few examples (related to the excerpt he posted): a cursory reading of this website should reveal that libertarians have a wide variety of opinions about the philosophical underpinning of the parent-child relationship, not all of which fall into the stereotypical "hard capitalist" position that children are property or capital; nor the standard Objectivist position that childhood as legal entity should cease to exist. Secondly - and again, just chosen for example - the item Edward quotes claims that having no demonstrable cases of a philosophy having been implemented is a good basis for winning debates. In politics, this is very much incorrect. It is nearly always easier to win over the politically inarticulate with examples of where a policy has already worked than promises that it would. The author of this item, it seems, has spent more time carrying on the sort of bland "socialism versus capitalism" argument with slow-witted, water-cooler libertarians than he has discussing policy with informed or thoughtful examples.

[Mike Laursen]

Now that the modern liberals have taken to calling themselves "progressives" (a more historically accurate label, given their policies), can we libertarians go back to being liberals?

It's worth a shot. Lord knows the word "libertarian" has picked up a lot of bad baggage. We'd have to edge into it by calling ourselves "classic liberals" at first.

[Urkobold?]

THE URKOBOLD JUST HAD THIS WEIRD MOMENT OF PURE INSIGHT, LIKE THE URKOBOLD WAS SHOT, SHOT WITH A DIAMOND BULLET RIGHT BETWEEN THE URKOBOLD'S EYES: THERE IS NO EDWARD. HE'S SIMPLY AN AMALGAMATION OF HIT & RUN POSTERS.

[Edward]

Listen, I haven't been able to see my own penis since 1995. Don't you guys have anything better to do than pick on me?

[x,y]

I wholeheartedly agree with hale that it's easier to win over the politically inarticulate (and politcally articulate I would add) with examples of where a policy has already worked than promises that it would. Most of the rebuttals I get are something along the lines of "But you're not being practical!" and "That's not even realistic!" And it's tough to find real life examples to help explain more anarchistic positions. I do find it useful, though, to argue that many facets of our lives today -- politcally, socially, and technologically -- were thought to be impractical and unrealistic a mere 100 years ago.

[Rick Barton]

THERE IS NO EDWARD. HE'S SIMPLY AN AMALGAMATION OF HIT & RUN POSTERS.

What?? Give us a break. We're way smarter than that! You're just teasing us. Right, URKOBOLD?

[iih]

I think Urkobold has been Edward throughout.

[JasonC]

Edward's real name is....Keyser Soze.

[Jamie Kelly]

There is no fucking Keyser Soze!

[Pro Libertate]

iih,

I'm pretty sure that's not true, though I wouldn't put it past some of my compatriots to join in the "Edward" posting bonanza. I think whether you believe in a real Edward depends on your core assumptions. Unlike the Urkobold, I have no certainty about this issue, though the actual proof of Edward's existence is thin, at best.

Contemplate the Edward parallel, Juanita. "She" has been around so long that it's completely obvious that "she" is a regular Hit & Run poster being ironic. I suspect thoreau, myself ?

[highnumber]

I have a few suspects in mind for the "real" Edward, too. You might say they are the usual suspects.

[de stijl]

I'll flip ya. Flip ya for real.

[iih]

Pro:

Yeah, I guess we'll never know. Best thing regarding Edward is just to ignore him. This is becoming really annoying. So if Edward is you, please stop. If not, ignore him.

[Pro Libertate]

I am not Edward, let me assure you.

[Pro Libertate]

Nor is the Viking Moose, even though he's been playing Edward on our blog.

[iih]

Pro: I'll take your word for it.

[robc]

Speaking of trolls, did Edward eat DanT? I havent seen him around recently.

[Pro Libertate]

Hey, yeah, where is Dan T.? Not lost in Mexico, I hope. We may have to issue a travel warning to all Hit & Run commenters who plan to go there, if so.

[VM]

Pro Libertate | November 1, 2007, 4:58pm | #
Nor is the Viking Moose, even though he's been playing Edward on our blog.

hay! I play a parody character called EDDDIEEEE or something similar. 🙂

But the musings that it's more than one person are prob'ly right. Juanita is another one, too.

[zig zag man]

Edward's comments are so boring and stupid they are like the droning of the Charley Brown school teacher. Wa Wa Wa Wa. I don't even bother reading them, I just see his name and scroll on by.

[JasonC]

zig zag man, that's just because you can't handle the truth that Edward is dishing out.

[A Freelance Therapist]

We'd have to edge into it by calling ourselves "classic liberals" at first.

It worked for Coca Cola?!

[joshua corning]

I never thought I was a libertarian until I picked up Reason magazine and realized I agree with everything they had printed.

Ya reason helped me find the libertarian inside of me....that and Monty Burns's monologue on why lil'lisa slurry is good.

"Engines need coolent"
"Dynamiters need dynamite"

[joshua corning]

"Today, Judge Rand ruled that the so-called "child-slavery" provision of the standard employment contract between MegaCorp and all employees was valid. As parents have the control of their children until eighteen, the signing-over of their labor until age 18 to MegaCorp was ruled a valid exercise of parental authority. Judge Rand, in his opinion, stated "The government is not to interfere with economic arrangements, absent a showing of fraud or force, as per the Fundamental Law of Libertopia. All parties with the legal right to contract consented, and that is the sole standard of evaluation. The fact that MegaCorp said it would fire any worker who did not agree to this provision is of no consequence, as that is entirely the right of MegaCorp."

Umm i guess i have to not call myself a libertarian anymore...cuz I think government is justified in stopping SLAVERY.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

[MikeP]

The government is not to interfere with economic arrangements, absent a showing of fraud or force, as per the Fundamental Law of Libertopia. All parties with the legal right to contract consented, and that is the sole standard of evaluation.

Straw man set up.

Straw man burned.

joshua corning's libertarianism renounced.

Damn you, Edward!

You may have won this time. But next time, we'll be ready for you.

[Arkady]

Pro Libertate | November 1, 2007, 5:10pm | #

Hey, yeah, where is Dan T.? Not lost in Mexico, I hope. We may have to issue a travel warning to all Hit & Run commenters who plan to go there, if so.

I'd noticed he was gone. I hope he's alright. His apparent love for pissing off libertarians drives him to make some pretty thought-provoking points.

Even if he does give us nineteen "Midnight no-knock drug raids are just the price we pay for enjoying the benefits of civilization"'s for every "How is a town different than an HOA?".

[robc]

Arkady,

As his common foe on the HoA issue, he was completly inane and non-thought-provoking on that one. I thought his "jews deserve to be gassed, they accepted the social contract" was his more thought provoking one. 🙂

[Kenny]

The other odd thing about the labeling of "progressive" of the modern left, is that is as different from the turn of the (20th)century Progressive movement as the self described "liberals" of the modern left are as different from the 19th century liberals.

The Progreesive movement of 1890ish-1920 would be seen today as a definitely center-left affair, with economic populism combined with religious based social conservatism, which set it appart from both the socialism and convervatism of its time. It was a movement of the political middle, by and for the middle class.

But I agree with Taco and Pro Lib above. Stuff like, for example, child labor was made illegal at just about the same time it became technologically obsolete. But because of this the "sucess," and a post hoc fallacy, the movement can take credit and believe more of the same is necessary. Conversry, their most spectacular failure, Prohibition, fails to carry any lessons beyond, "well, I guess we just can't ban alcohol."

Note: FWIW I do deviate from the doctranaire liberatarian line, and believe in stuff like laws against child labor, and for a minimum wage. I believe if you don't set a floor, too big of an asymetries in power will develop (i.e. slavery for all practical purposes). I also understand that this may actually prevent some people from working at all, but I am willing to accept that trade-off.

[Arkady]

robc,

Oh sure, he didn't necessarily pursue the HoA question in an interesting direction. But it did raise some interesting questions in my mind about property and stipulations on sales and so forth.

[Arkady]

Whereas, though I don't remember Dan T. ever specifically making that argument, I find that particular shtick about Hitler and the Jews -- and all the various incarnations of the "people get their rights from the state" line of reasoning -- to be nothing short of vile.

[joe]

Is it even the slightest bit surprising that
David Patraeus - who is supposed to be apolitical by law - is #2?

People didn't even know which party Dwight Eisenhower or Wesley Clark belonged to until after they retired. They just did their job in a straightforward, non-partisan manner.

Bush has made a policy of promoting political hacks, and they get away with the most blatant politicking.