Government Spending

Glenn Greenwald: "Standard-issue Republicans and Ron Paul libertarians are as incompatible as two factions can be"

|

Over at Salon, Glenn Greenwald has a spirited, link-rich argument that "the GOP is once again donning their libertarian, limited-government masks in order to re-invent itself and, more important, to co-opt the energy and passion of the Ron-Paul-faction that spawned and sustains the 'tea party' movement." Excerpt, with the links excluded (too many!):

The Party that spat contempt at Paul during the Bush years and was diametrically opposed to most of his platform now pretends to share his views.  Standard-issue Republicans and Ron Paul libertarians are as incompatible as two factions can be—recall that the most celebrated right-wing moment of the 2008 presidential campaign was when Rudy Giuliani all but accused Paul of being an America-hating Terrorist-lover for daring to suggest that America's conduct might contribute to Islamic radicalism […]

This is what Republicans always do.  When in power, they massively expand the power of the state in every realm.  Deficit spending and the national debt skyrocket.  The National Security State is bloated beyond description through wars and occupations, while no limits are tolerated on the Surveillance State.  Then, when out of power, they suddenly pretend to re-discover their "small government principles."  The very same Republicans who spent the 1990s vehemently opposing Bill Clinton's Terrorism-justified attempts to expand government surveillance and executive authority then, once in power, presided over the largest expansion in history of those very same powers.  The last eight years of Republican rule was characterized by nothing other than endlessly expanded government power, even as they insisted—both before they were empowered and again now—that they are the standard-bearers of government restraint. […]

But that GOP limited government rhetoric is simply never matched by that Party's conduct, especially when they wield power.  The very idea that a political party dominated by neocons, warmongers, surveillance fetishists, and privacy-hating social conservatives will be a party of "limited government" is absurd on its face.  There literally is no myth more transparent than the Republican Party's claim to believe in restrained government power.  For that reason, it's only a matter of time before the fundamental incompatibility of the "tea party movement" and the political party cynically exploiting it is exposed.

Whole thing here; link via the Lew Rockwell blog.

NEXT: Reason Writers Around Town: Matt Welch Talks Libertarianism With Eli Lake at Bloggingheads

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. link via the Lew Rockwell blog.

    Does Eli Lake know about this? Welch is a Jew-hating, objectively pro-fascist conspiracy theorist basement pornographer! Shun him.

    1. That’s unfair. Matt doesn’t even have a basement. You can call and ask his wife.

      1. Matt’s wife calls it a “dungeon”, or at least that was what she said while breaking out the handcuffs, midgets, Wesson oil, and trampolines.

        Nick’s got The Jacket, but Matt’s got The Dominatrix. So who’s cooler?

      2. ++ for the “Uneasy Rider” reference!

  2. For that reason, it’s only a matter of time before the fundamental incompatibility of the “tea party movement” and the political party cynically exploiting it is exposed.

    I truly hope so. I’d love to see one (or both) of the major parties fragment into pieces. We desperately need a multi-party system in this country, to more accurately represent the mosaic of different beliefs held by the populace.

    1. Ugh no. Multi-party systems are even worse. What we need is a viable Libertarian Party.

      1. What we need is more people to be libertarian. The rest is mostly details.

        1. What we need is more beer. The rest is ALL details.

          1. Your ideas are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.

    2. Honestly, the libertarians best hope is probably a takeover of the Republican Party, given the chokehold that the two party system has on politics in this country.

      It’s happened before. The Democrats were once the party of Jim Crow.
      The Republicans were once the party of Abe Lincoln.

      It’s true that Democrats still have a few Dinosaurs from those days lingering around. Jesse Helms. Robert Byrd. Can we perhaps hope that today’s Republicans will someday be that doddering faction? Maybe they’ll even call them Red Dogs or something.

  3. Glenn is 100% right, and a preemptive “nice try, fuck you” to the crypto-libertarian GOP cheerleaders here who will try and explain why the GOP is fractionally better than the Dems. We get it, assholes: you’re terrified we might vote for the Dems and that strikes fear into your TEAM RED TEAM BLUE hearts. But don’t worry; we detest them just as much as we detest you. Scramble all you want trying to sucker us into forming an alliance with you, but that ship has sailed, and your prevarications have been exposed.

    And please stop pretending to be libertarians. It’s tiring.

    1. If they’re Republicans pretending to be libertarians, that would make them crypto-Republicans, correct? I call shenanigans on your nomenclature.

      1. Oh yeah? Fine, dillhole. Call them pseudo-libertarian crypto-Republican shithead cheerleaders. Happy?

        ” Violent ground acquisition games such as football are in fact a crypto-fascist metaphor for nuclear war.”

        1. “Now listen, you queer: stop calling me a crypto-Nazi or I’ll sock you in your goddamn face and you’ll stay plastered.”

        2. Oh yeah? Fine, dillhole. Call them pseudo-libertarian crypto-Republican shithead cheerleaders. Happy?

          I’m sticking with “lying pieces of shit” if you don’t mind.

          1. To-MAY-to, lying-pieces-of-MAH-shit-to

      2. It’s Seattle, Wart-Man. Sloppy wording is endemic to the lifestyle.

        1. It goes with the sloppy clothing.

          1. Epi doesn’t do sloppy clothing. It would counter the olive oil voice and guinea charm with the ladies. 😉

          2. What we need is more beer. The rest is ALL details

            Peter

    2. After six years with the GOP controlling the Oval Ofiice and both houses, expanding government and restricting liberty while launching a dumbass fucking war doomed to failure, they can kiss my royal libertarian ass. I no longer consider the GOP to be “more libertarian” than the Dems. Both parties display animosity to libertarian positions the instant they control the machinery of state.

      Fuck you GOP. Fuck you very much.

      Fuck you too Dems. What has Obama and his huge Dem majority done that libertarians can cheer about?

      Oh that’s right, tied with George the Lesser, not one fucking thing.

    3. We get it, assholes: you’re terrified we might vote for the Dems and that strikes fear into your TEAM RED TEAM BLUE hearts. But don’t worry; we detest them just as much as we detest you. Scramble all you want trying to sucker us into forming an alliance with you, but that ship has sailed, and your prevarications have been exposed.

      And please stop pretending to be libertarians. It’s tiring.

      What is really tiring is claiming that everyone else is simply a drone who gets their talking points from their respective National Party. Should I assume that those who make this comment do not think for themselves but only follow “Team Browne” mindlessly?

      I am looking for something to call the Libertarian Team. The only primary color left is “Yellow Team” but that has a connotation I am not (necessarily) wanting to apply.

      How about “Browne Team” after the late great Harry Browne?

      1. Team Purple. It has a royal ring to it.

        Nah, who am I kidding? Like we could ever work together as a team.

        1. We Libertarians would generally be opposed to anything that has a ‘royal ring to it.’

          1. Nah, I’m all for a libertarian monarchy, as long as the monarch agrees to have a small explosive charge implanted in the back of his/her head and the activation sequence uses the constitutional oath as a trigger mechanism.

            Violate the oath and BLAM.

      2. Team Orange.

      3. I vote for team Gold, because our currency won’t be a paper lie.

      4. How about team lavender… It’s a mixture of red and blue, but brighter.

      5. I’ve got no problem with yellow, it’s the color of the Gadsden flag.

    4. Meh. I’ll vote for anyone who I believe, based off his or her record or his or her past (if they don’t yet have a record), will stand honestly and firmly for Liberty.

    5. His dig at Ann Coulter wasn’t really fair, though. Can’t believe I’m defending her, but she’s been saying that she agrees with everything Paul stands for except his (“crazy”) foreign policy from the beginning. Even when it was not Fox News fashionable to do so.

    6. Fair enough, but let’s not pretend that Rick Ellersberg Greenwald is making this argument in good faith. It’s in his political interest to drive as big a wedge as possible between libertarians and conservatives.

  4. Goddammit, i hate it when Greenwald agrees with me.

    1. Me too. It’s like my soul is made of broken glass.

  5. YES YES YES
    Exactly right.
    Finally someone is telling it straight.

  6. Greenwald is absolutely correct here, but I still reflexively hate Team D much more than Team R. I blame my upbringing. Fuck you, Team R.

    1. Me too, Warty. It might be my upbringing, or it might be that the R’s, while just as statist and wasteful and nosy and corrupt as the Ds, aren’t as fucking smug about it.

      In fact, it might not be that I hate R politicos fractionally less than D politicos – I hate R voters less. R voters are earnest – every time their guys are up to bat they think “This time. THIS TIME they won’t be corrupt, lying sacks of shit who betray everything we thought we voted for the minute they take the their oaths of office.”

      Democratic voters, however, smug little know-it-all rat bastards that they are, will never hold their politicians accountable for the mess they make. They’ll always blame the evil Republican politicians for thwarting Democratic plans. The Democratic pols are just too good, darn them — too pure, too ethical to fight for all that’s good and true. And if they don’t blame the evil Republican congress critters, they blame the stupid backwardsass voters who can’t even discern their own self-interest (which would be to vote Democrat, of course).

      To listen to all the Democratic hyperventilating about Republican talk of seccession in the wake of Obama’s election, you’d think no one talked about cutting off Jesusland in the days following Bush’s re-election.

      Shorter version: Most Republican voters really do want smaller goverment and lower taxes. Their mistake lies in returning to their abusers time and time again. Hell, a homophobe got BOOED at CPAC. That’s impressive.

      Democratic voters, OTOH, just think Big Government hasn’t been practiced correctly.

      Liberatarians don’t need to vote for Republicans. Republicans need to vote for Libertarian candidates.

      Shorter shorter version: I hate conservatives. But I really, really hate liberals (either Trey or Matt said it – don’t remember which.)

      1. You summed up my thoughts perfectly. I can’t stand the conservatives who keep turning to the same assholes, but I hate liberals even more because they’re unyielding in their arrogant condescension.

  7. The very idea that a political party dominated by neocons, warmongers, surveillance fetishists, and privacy-hating social conservatives will be a party of “limited government” is absurd on its face.

    Fuckin’ A, bubba.

    Is that what they call the big tent?

  8. Greenwald is just pissed because all the libertarian leaners and independents who voted for the democrats and Obama in ’06 and ’08 are now abandoning them in droves and will help give them a drubbing in November.

    On another note, I’m a bit surprised that he has nothing to say about the FBI formally closing the books on the anthrax attacks, considering his many paranoid ravings on the subject over the years.

    1. Actually, libertarian leaners voted for McCain in ’08, though they did vote for Democrats in ’06 (and ’04). Young libertarian leaners (18-29) broke for Obama, definitely (though that was true in the election as a whole), but overall libertarian leaners trended away from the Democrats after ’04 and ’06.

      1. I thought we held our nose and voted for Bob Barr.

        1. NO! A vote for Bob Barr was a vote for Obama! That’s why all good cosmotarians voted for Obama because McCain would have done a surge in Afghanistan!

          Besides, he apologized for his DOMA vote, and can’t be voting for any apologizers.

    2. A lot of us didn’t vote for Obama, and aren’t going to vote for whatever asshole TEAM RED decides to foist upon us. With the possible exception of someone who has demonstrated they don’t believe in government power – (e.g., Gary Johnson, Jeff Flake).

      If they want us to “get real” and vote for another McBain clone on the grounds that he’ll be 2% better than Obama, they can tie themselves up and invite Larry Craig over to play.

      1. demonstrated record… that is the key. That is exactly why Ron Paul developed such an amazing groundswell for a candidate the GOP practically spit on. You pretty much know exactly what he will do. They don’t call him Dr. No for nothing.

  9. Goddammit, i hate it when Warty has had the same upbringing as me.

    1. I hope you’re not actually me, Homocles.

  10. The very same Republicans who spent the 1990s vehemently opposing Bill Clinton’s Terrorism-justified attempts to expand government surveillance and executive authority then, once in power,

    So having Congress doesn’t count as being “in power” from 1994-2000? But if not, then when is Greenwald referring to here:

    This is what Republicans always do. When in power, they massively expand the power of the state in every realm. Deficit spending and the national debt skyrocket.

    So he’s talking only about 1952-1954 and 1920-1930? Or is he one of those who believes that only the Presidency matters?

    In reality, neither elected Republicans nor Democrats are a monolith, which is why explanations like Greenwald’s are silly. The policies from 1992-1994 were different from 1994-2000, so clearly the election had some effect.

    Unified power increases the temptation to use it, certainly.

    1. Thacker, don’t be obtuse.

      It was pretty clear he was talking about 2000-2006.

      1. Yes that part is clear, but surely the “always” implies that he’s thinking about some other time period.

      2. Which is one time period. “Always” implies that there’s at least another time period when it happened.

        It seems to me that he’s made a perfectly good argument why we should have Democratic Presidents and GOP Congresses.

        (Side note: Why is there so much hate for Gingrich among libertarians, and relatively little for Hastert?)

        1. Ummm, because no one cares what Hastert says anymore?

          Back when he was still around, I called for Hastert to be removed from office for calling the constitution an “anachronism”.

          As bad as he is, Newt has never said anything remotely that stupid.

          1. It actually is an anachronism. When’s the last time someone actually followed it? Does anyone REALLY believe the founding fathers meant for the commerce clause to mean Congress had power over every aspect of life in the U.S.? In practical terms, people interpret the constitution they way they want it to read and by people I mean the SCOTUS.

        2. It seems to me that he’s made a perfectly good argument why we should have Democratic Presidents and GOP Congresses.

          That seems to have worked better than any other set up in terms of retarding the rate of growth in the gummint. But, you still end up getting screwed in the end in terms of liberty.

          Ideally, you would have neither, but ideal worlds are in short supply these days.

        3. Reagan ballooned the deficit as well.

      3. It’s pretty clear that he’s also criticizing the Nixon and Reagan Presidencies, when there were Democratic Congress. So, from his articles we can conclude that for libertarians Dem Prez/Dem Congress, Rep Prez/Rep Congress, Rep Prez/Dem Congress are all bad, but Dem Prez/Rep Congress is good, since he insists that the Republicans “spent the 1990s vehemently opposing Bill Clinton’s Terrorism-justified attempts to expand government surveillance and executive authority.”

  11. We need more people from the right calling out Republicans who preach small government and all the things liberty minded people love but legislate entirely differently when in power.

    1. I just love having to look up acronyms! Can’t get enough of that.

  12. As with all Greenwald’s rants: TLDR.

    1. That’s why there was that handy little excerpt blockquoted above.

  13. I hope you’re not actually me, Homocles.

    Well, i don’t go hiking in national parks in assless chaps hoping to lure Steve Smith, so no, i’m not you.

    1. I hate swamp-ass, but I like to protect my tender white legs against the brambles. Do you have a better solution, Gayto?

      1. I’ve read that plain cotton panties will solve your yeast infections, Warty.

        1. Now if I were fortunate enough to own a vagina, do you really think I would keep it covered? Use your thinkmuscle, man.

          1. I’m going to email you a punch in the goddamn face.

            Check your in-box… if you dare.

            1. Congratulations, guys! For the second time in two days, you’ve made my shiny metal boner go limp. Scary, huh? LOL

              Jess
              http://www.complete-anonymity.cz.tc

  14. Good stuff, Glenn. Now go explain to your Shock Doctrine friends that the Bush administration didn’t represent smaller government, unrestrained free markets, the demise of the regulatory state, etc.

  15. I hate swamp-ass, but I like to protect my tender white legs against the brambles. Do you have a better solution, Gayto?

    You make a good point, Wart.

  16. If only Republican voters would read this.

  17. Methinks Glenn doth protest too much. Or have I not read the accompanying column where he explodes the myth that the Democrats are the wise, selfless holders of the public trust?

  18. I think it’s hard to read this column any other way but saying that out of the four common possibilities, the best for libertarians is the Dem Prez / GOP Congress variation.

  19. I’m not going to argue with Greenwald that the last batch of Team Red was big government anti-libertarian “compassionate” conservatism. But I’m not sure he completes the argument that libertarians would be better off under Team Blue, if the goal is to promote more libertarian principles.

    The response at CPAC to GOPROUD was encouraging, in that it seems that the social conservatives are being sent to the back of the conservative bus in favor of the fiscal conservative/small government types.

    In comparison, Team Blue has jack and shit to offer libertarians. I blew a hippies mind last night when I asked him which party is more likely to legalize marijuana. He couldn’t come up with a good reason why Team Blue would do it before Team Red, and that was like WHOAH dude…

    1. Team Blue is way less likely to legalize marijuana, is it not? All those prison guards and cops belong to unions. And they don’t want anyone to take away their jobs or 100% pensions, so they will oppose legalization. Sane drug laws = fewer people in prison = fewer SEIU dues-paying guards.

      But here on the left coast, I haven’t had enough coffee yet, so I could be full of shit.

      1. It was funny to argue this with the hippie. When I explained that it ulitmately comes down to which party is less likely to want to control your life the answer is obviously the one more closely allied with classical liberalism, which right now is fiscal conservatism.

        That like, totally harshed this dudes mellow man. Like, Totally.

        You could argue that social conservatives are just as bad as progressives when it comes to wanting to run your lives, and I would agree with you, but ultimately if you have to pick whomever is for limiting the size and reach of the government it sure as hell ain’t the left.

        1. A lot of things get done by the party you wouldn’t expect because they are immune to attacks for being “weak” on the issue.

          One of the most prominent red-hunters of the 50’s, Nixon, was the guy who opened relations with China. The liberal who “felt your pain” – Clinton – was the guy who instituted welfare reform.

        2. When the Blue Team was on the outside looking in they claimed all our privacy and human rights issues would be solved if we voted for them. They got in the White House and it appears they lied.

          The same thing will happen to our fiscal concerns when the Red Team gets back in.

          Why? The fix right now fiscally, nobody wants to hear. Kinda like someone desperately hanging onto his gangrene-infected leg, we don’t want to admit we are at a critical mass point in the U.S. so we struggle to maintain all our social programs, foreign intervention, drug wars, and Keynesian economic policies because to do otherwise would mean political suicide for the politicians. The only way to combat it is to educate the masses and hope they will demand a change before we go the way of the Roman Empire.

  20. ” The very same Republicans who spent the 1990s vehemently opposing Bill Clinton’s Terrorism-justified attempts to expand government surveillance and executive authority then, once in power, presided over the largest expansion in history of those very same powers. ”

    Um, the Democrats showed the exact same hypocrisy. But I guess Glenn missed this point

    1. The article was about GOP hypocrisy. Dem hypocrisy had nothing to do with the subject matter (and would book-length anyhow).

  21. I believe concern trolling is the proper term. I don’t know which members of the GOP are friendly towards libertarians. Certainly some, Huckabee to name one, are not.

    But I am certain about one thing; Glenn Greenwald is a totalitarian socialist fuck who is no friend of libertarians or anyone in the human race for that matter.

    1. Greenwald a totalitarian? Jesus.

      1. He is exactly that. Just because he wants to hold KSM’s hand and make sure he is given a good attorney, doesn’t mean he gives a shit about anyone else’s rights or limiting government power. He talks a good game about torture and the like. But that motherfucker would take every gun in this country given the chance and piss on every last economic freedom you have.

        1. God, you’re stupid. Does this sound like the comment of a gun-grabber?

          “Campaign finance laws are a bit like gun control statutes: actual criminals continue to possess large stockpiles of weapons, but law-abiding citizens are disarmed. ”
          http://www.salon.com/opinion/g…..index.html

          You are a stupid, stupid fuck.

          1. Wow he is actually right about gun control. Now go find where he supports any economic rights or is anything but a statist?

            1. So you admit to just pulling the gun thing completely out of your ass, and now you demand more evidence from ME? You’re a joke.

            2. Why don’t YOU go read Greenwald and find evidence for you accusations??? Aren’t you some kind of a fucking lawyer?

              1. FINISH HIM!!

            3. Just to finish your sorry ass off, it took me about 20 seconds to find this:
              http://www.salon.com/opinion/g…..eech_laws/

        2. John, please provide a link showing that Greenwald wants to “take every gun in this country.”

        3. Okay, nevermind. a has already shown that you’re wrong on that point. Okay, then, please provide a link showing he wants to “piss on every last economic freedom you have.”

          Good luck.

          1. John shoots his mouth off in total ignorance all the time. Go to any thread and start checking his assertions.

            1. Go to any thread and then start screaming like a angry monkey.

    2. I personally wouldn’t call Greenwald a totalitarian, but he has an affinity for radical Islamic terrorists and the nations that sponsor them that goes far above and beyond that of a stand-issue liberal. I find it more than a little disturbing. These guys he loves so darn much would be more than happy cut his lefty idiot head off in about two seconds flat.

      1. OK, Idiot #2: links?

        1. Are you Greenwald sockpuppeting under a new identity or something?

          The idea that the poor Islamic world is being victimized by evil America has been one of the major themes of his blog for the last few years now. He expounds on this theme practically every freaking day. Lately he has even taken to the extreme lefty position of calling the Bush administration “war criminals”. You know how to find his blog, do your own darn research.

          1. See, when you describe terrorists as “These guys he loves so darn much,” you lose all possible credibility. Greenwald has never defended terrorists. He’s attacked U.S. policy.

            To say that criticizing the way we deal with terrorists is to defend or support terrorists is the worst kind of reflexive, childish argument you could make.

          2. Also, if you claim that Greenwald has an affinity for terrorists and someone asks you to provide evidence for your claim, you could help yourself be taken seriously if you actually provided evidence instead of copping out on that particular intellectual responsibility.

            1. Hey, why should they provide evidence? They know this stuff in their gut, man. It’s up to us to prove a negative.

              1. Honestly Glenn, just tell me straight: why do you care so much about these foreign radical Islamic extremists? I will never for the life of me get this. You should get out of your cocoon one of these days and talk to some true mainstream Muslims; even they detest these vile medieval throwbacks.

                I know you’re a good Jewish liberal boy, but most of these guys you go out of your way to defend would put a bullet in your head without even so much as blinking an eye. Look up Daniel Pearl if you don’t believe me.

  22. God, you’re stupid. Does this sound like the comment of a gun-grabber?

    “Campaign finance laws are a bit like gun control statutes: actual criminals continue to possess large stockpiles of weapons, but law-abiding citizens are disarmed. ”
    http://www.salon.com/opinion/g…..index.html

    You are a stupid, stupid fuck.

  23. I wrote an email thanking Greenwald profusely for this article; after a two years of media distortion, Glenn sets out to defend our good name.

    In response to John, don’t be ungrateful; libertarians have few friends, and Greenwald is one of our best. He is trying to defend us from the lies spewed by the MSM @ MSNBC and Faux News. Show him some respect.

    1. Yeah, I don’t get the Greenwald hate. Someone want to linky to an article where he displayed massive intellectual dishonesty?

      1. Google “Glenn Greenwald sockpuppet”.

  24. I’m going to email you a punch in the goddamn face.

    Oh shit. Glad I’m at work so I didn’t spew Coke all over my own keyboard…

    1. You want a little chin-music too, tough guy?

      1. You want a little chin-music too, tough guy

        Please make your requests to teabag BP elsewhere, if you don’t mind.

        1. What is proper tea-bag etiquette? Should the penis rest on the chin? Or along the nose? The chin option seems to plant the bagee’s nose directly in the anus of the bagger–a feature or a bug depending on personal perference for both parties–or, at the very least, the toilet-paper-shreds strewn rear taintal region. But the eyeward orientation seems like it would result in the penis slapping against an eye. (Although the nose could be very effective in stimulating the bulbospongiosus muscle.) I also guess you could go in at an angle or even perpendicular to the nose ridge, if agile and limber enough. But the general shape of the scrotum, even sagging under steamy conditions, suggests that it would fit in the mouth of the bagee best aligned along the chin/nose ridge meridian.

          1. It’s the latter. At least, when I put my balls in your mouth last night while you were sleeping, that’s how I did it.

            And no, that is not “borderline rape”.

            1. Just wash them. At least once a year, fucko.

              1. Well, I hadn’t showered in a few days and they were a bit vinegary. But Leprechauns are real.

                1. The court rules that the aforementioned will place the plaintiffs testicular sack into his mouth and draw succulently for no less than 30 seconds.

                  1. Just launched my shiny metal junk into space. Was never going to work again after reading this. Circuits overloaded. Boom. lol

                    Jess
                    http://www.anonymous-tools.se.tc

  25. Greenwald is probably the liberal I read most. He drove his base into a frenzy with his amazing Citizen’s United column (hundreds of angry messages demanding he turn in his lefty card), and he is extremely critical about Obama’s civil liberties abuses, and the continuing disaster that is Afghanistan. I don’t agree with a lot of his opinions, but he is among the few on the left who truly does put his principles ahead of the party line.

    http://www.salon.com/news/opin…..index.html

    http://www.salon.com/opinion/g…..index.html

  26. In the Fluffy administration, Greenwald would be Attorney General.

    The crucifixion squads would run night and day. They’d hear the carpenters hammering clear out to Germantown. Maybe Baltimore.

    And there’d be a cross there for me, too, if I took one single step out of line.

    He wouldn’t faithfully implement ALL of my policies, of course, but I’d watch the tape of Bush in the orange jumpsuit getting on the plane to the Hague over and over and the joy that would give me would more than make up for whatever petty differences we might have on things like Title IX or the Civil Rights Act.

    1. and the joy that would give me would more than make up for whatever petty differences we might have on things like Title IX or the Civil Rights Act.

      Until everyone else with whom you disagreed was dead and then?

    2. Fuck the Hague, I want to see GWB put on trial for violations of the Constitution, abuse of power, maybe even treason (HE was the one that said the terrorists “hate our freedoms” surely his usurpations thereof constitute “aid and comfort” to the people hating the freedoms he’s worked so hard to destroy)

  27. very idea that a political party dominated by neocons, warmongers, surveillance fetishists, and privacy-hating social conservatives will be a party of “limited government” is absurd on its face

    The problem here is that Greenwald doesn’t even try to understand the rationales that people might have behind war or increased surveilance. Instead, they are simply “warmongers,” i.e., love war for it’s own sake. Or they love surveilance because, apparently, they derive sexual pleasure from it?

    If there really is a wing of the GOP that only loves war or surveillance for its own sake, than Greenwald is right, and on meaningful dialogue can be had with the libertarians. Somehow, I doubt the creature in Greenwald’s imagination actually exists.

    1. With all due respect Abdul, most libertarians actually share that perspective with Glenn Greenwald.

      1. They do? I’m with Abdul on this one. Greenwald has constructed a mighty fine straw man with the “neocons, warmongers, surveillance fetishists” tirade.

        I bet he sees dead people too.

    2. There is, in fact, a wing of the GOP that actively prefers war as a method of dealing with any non-nuclear-armed state that resists the will of the United States in any detail. I think it’s fair to label them “warmongers”.

      And there is, in fact, a wing of the GOP that actively favors large-scale surveillance, whether in peacetime or wartime.

      Frankly, I’d bet that 20% of Republicans would love to see perpetual surveillance of everyone but themselves, in order to enhance the government’s ability to prosecute drug crimes, tax evasion, street crimes, etc. Maybe more. Is that “surveillance for its own sake”? No, because it’s an instrument for a particular end. But there’s still a “surveillance wing” to the GOP, sorry.

      1. “a wing of the GOP that actively prefers war as a method of dealing with any non-nuclear-armed state that resists the will of the United States in any detail”

        Hyperbole much? “In any detail”? Seriously? So when JFK fucked up the Bay of Pigs, was that just a democrat warmonger? This is ridiculous.

        a wing of the GOP that actively favors large-scale surveillance

        They are not anywhere near as active as the left when it comes to red-light camera BS, or “it’s for your own good” laws that invade your privacy.

        I’m not disagreeing with you that there are some crazy social conservatives in the GOP, but you still have to make an argument why the left is any better, and I feel that part is falling well short. Not to mention the fact that the fiscal conservative part of the GOP is the one getting the most attention these days, and that has more in common with libertarianism than any of them.

        1. Red light cameras are not a right/left thing. Nice try.

          Seven states have them banned: Maine, Mississippi, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, West Virginia and Wisconsin. Three went for Obama and 4 went for McCain

    3. Yeah, it’s not like people were ready to have the surveillance state and were waiting for the right opportunity to kick it in gear. The PATRIOT Act is over 300 pages long and was passed by the House a month after 9/11 unread. There’s no way most of the provisions in there weren’t already on the DoJ wet dreams list and cobbled together because it was easy to do it due to the national mood.

    4. Check out the history of the neocons, and their theories of “national greatness”. They think peacetime makes the U.S. “too soft”.

  28. So politicians are lying bastards who say anything to get elected. Who Knew

  29. This is what Republicans always do. When in power, they massively expand the power of the state in every realm.

    As opposed to what the Democrats do when in power? Which is massively expand the power of the state in every realm.

    1. Nobody here is denying that, and neither does Greenwald. The article in question is on Republican hypocrisy. Greenwald spares no criticism of his own team.

  30. Part of why this fraud has been sustainable thus far is that libertarians — like everyone who doesn’t view all politics through the mandated, distorting, suffocating Democrat v. GOP prism — are typically dismissed as loons and nuts, and are thus eager for any means of achieving mainstream acceptance.

    Well, no. Ron Paul Republicans don’t want acceptance by statist Republicans –they want to fucking take over the party and let the statist Rs be the marginalized folks sitting in the corner and getting them to 50.1% of the vote without affecting policy.

  31. Greenwald is focusing on the Repubs because they’re the ones currently pretending to respect our values so that they can trick us into voting for them. The Dems still figure they don’t need us; I suspect that’s about to change soon, in which case we will start hearing about how wonderful they supposedly are on civil liberties which will be just as big a fucking lie as the ones the Repubs are telling now.

    1. Exactly so! By the end of this year, I hope to see a big “fuck you” from libertarians to conservatives. A formal divorce of Buckley’s shotgun marriage (ie. “Fusionism). And, when the Democrats come crawling to us, we’ll reply: You honestly think that, after being called terrorists by you under Obama, we’ll help you? We’re nobody’s bitch.”

      Enough of being the Right’s monkey boys, and the Left’s gimps. Time to stand on our own, in opposition to both.

      This isn’t to say that single-issue coalitions are impossible; just not formal political alliances.

  32. Well, no. Ron Paul Republicans don’t want acceptance by statist Republicans –they want to fucking take over the party and let the statist Rs be the marginalized folks sitting in the corner and getting them to 50.1% of the vote without affecting policy

    This is something that really needs to be considered by those advocating the libertarianize-the-GOP strategy. Say Ron Paul, Gary Johnson, Jeff Flake, et al are successful at making the GOP libertarian-dominated. How do you go from controlling the GOP to actually winning elections if the ~20% social con/neo-con electorate is alienated from the party? Even if you control the GOP, you have to put together a winning coalition, which means either a tacit agreement to focus on fiscal/economic policy (we’ve tried that) *or* bringing the young, anti-drug war, civil libertarians over from the Dems to replace the fleeing (and dying) conservatives. I think the latter would be preferable, though perhaps harder and less likely, but either way we libertarians will still be in the compromise, coalition-building game that bit us so hard in the ass with lib’t-con fusionism.

    1. Where do the conservatives have to flee to?

      They may stop voting. They aren’t going to vote for Democrats.

    2. Another issue with the old fusionism is that it led to guilt-by-association; whatever the conservatives did, libertarians were thought to be in support of.

  33. Democrats are big government in your wallet. Republicans are big government in your bedroom.

    1. I can live with that. Nothing goes on in there anyway.

      Hmm same goes for the wallet actually, but I have some hope at least.

  34. Before even getting to the usual points about ‘third-party’ schisms, etc., there’s a simpler way to interpret the ‘outrage/distrust’ directed toward the GOP in articles and ensuing comments such as this thread. Praise for ultra-Left partisan Glen Greenwald makes for an excellent illustration.

    A major fallacy of ideological-political interpretation is to assume that there is a straight-line ‘Flat Earth’ Left-Right axis. The reality is the ‘shape’ of ideological-political is more like an oval; a person can travel along the various issues and come to places where traditionally ‘Left’ and ‘Right’ forces meld. This brings to mind that while people argue about the ‘betrayal of ideals’ from the GOP, that ‘Libertarian’ is a lot less uniform under the surface. In reality, while holding traditionally ‘Right’-oriented less government philosophies, there’s a significant faction in Libertarian circles which have their sympathies with traditionally ‘Left’ views otherwise.

    Matt Welch, Will Wilkinson, etc., all display this political mindset. That measure of Right-Left isn’t all that uncommon in American history either. The crux of this, as it entails threads/comments like above, is that it does effect a disingenuous appearance. While professing to find ‘fatal flaws’ within the GOP, in reality it’s a simple partisan matter of many Libertarians just have ‘Left’ views. This fact isn’t lost on folks like Greenwald or Ezre Klein, who are happy to wag the puppet of ‘Libraltarian’. This shell game keeps Libertarian momentum confused and split, hampering it from driving, culturally, the public’s want from the GOP. On the other side, for people like Will Wilkinson, keeping the momentum from the GOP ensures a field most attractive to very smart, and very arrogant, ideological/philosophical thinkers-an ideological vacuum with no real-world presence, thus ensuring a forever blank slate to bounce their views off of unencumbered by real-world set-backs.

    Whatever one’s complaint about Democrats or Republicans, I see the undercurrents of Libertarianism as deeply muddled as either of the two formal political parties.

    1. Whoops, that’s ‘Liberaltarian’ and ‘Ezra Klein’.

      and also in PS, I’m not indicating there aren’t big, honking flaws with the GOP. Just that a portion of the venom directed that way isn’t quite what it seems in all cases.

  35. let the neocons and christian right create a new fascist party, leave the GOP to paleoconservatives/libertarians. woo.

    1. Not too sure about the paleocons, as they are against free trade and are socially conservative.

      On foreign policy, we may be similar. Everywhere else…not so much.

  36. Democrats are big government in your wallet. Republicans are big government in your bedroom.

    Well, not entirely true, as you don’t see many righties making the arguments against oral sex, anal intercourse, pornography, miscegenation*, bad language in books, comic book codes and the like that they use to make even up to the 1980’s when every one else was pointing to them and laughing at them for being fuddy duddies. Likely, the very reason their nannying priorities have changed. It is amazing how radically different the mores are from then to now.

    However, Democrats are the neighbors constantly ‘borrowing’ things out of your garage without asking and they cough very loudly when you are enjoying a cigar a hundred yards away on your own porch while the Republicans are your neighbor on the other side of the fence who wont stop shooting his shotgun at shadows that spook him at three thirty in the morning.

    * like ‘pogrom’, an aesthetically pleasing word to describe a horrible concept.

    1. Whatever helps you sleep at night, alan.

      The social conservatives are still running the show; you’re just too damn blind to see it.

  37. Republicans are your neighbor

    Send you back to noun/verb agreement school, fool!

  38. as a ron pauler, i appreciate that article immensely 😀

  39. “Standard-issue Republicans and Ron Paul libertarians are as incompatible as two factions can be…”

    I think there’s some confusion here…it looks like a bait and switch.

    If the question is whether libertarians and registered Republicans have a lot in common at the grass roots level, then the answer is “yes”.

    If the question is whether Republicans will support anyone in office, no matter what he does once he gets there, so long as he’s from the GOP? That’s like attacking partisanship itself just on principle.

    And what politicians say about the use of power before they have it and after they have it…that’s another question entirely too.

    The only part I find interesting at all is the question about the grass roots. If the Republicans want to go with a coalition that isn’t centered around cultural conservatives like the Bush the Lesser regime, then they need to find religion again on small government–that’s a winning combination.

    The differences between candidates, in other words, don’t really matter; it’s the constituencies they want–some of the small government people may be culture war people too, but you can’t keep a broad coalition based on a culture war for long.

    …unless you have war to center a wedge on. Short of that, a libertarian based coalition is a broader coalition, and they have enough in common with centrist Republicans to gel…at the grass roots level.

    Who cares whether Giuliani or Bush are compatible with libertarian candidates? I don’t understand why that matters.

  40. Blues and Greens. Guelphs and Ghibellines. Girondists and Jacobins. Republicans and Democrats. Everyone loses.

  41. There literally is no myth more transparent than the Republican Party’s claim to believe in restrained government power.

    They are speaking “relatively”. As in relative to the Democrats we support limited government and greater individual liberty.

    1. If there are two bullies who kick your ass on the way to school and one of them takes your lunch money,slingshot and slashes the tires on your bike and the other says “keep your fucking lunch money and slingshot pussy! Oh and nice bike”
      One is slightly more than marginally better than the other.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.