http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/11/05/open-thread-623/
If you've seen "V for Vendetta", then you know what the movie is about but for those of you who haven't seen it I'll avoid going too much into the plot because it's an awesome movie that I don't want to ruin for you. Basically though it's about a masked superhero-like figure that wages war against a tyrannical, corrupt government. It makes sense that the movie would be a hit with anyone of a libertarian mindset, or anyone who happens to realize exactly how many rights they've lost under the current administration. The movie makes importance of the fifth of November as the date of "the gunpowder plot" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gunpowder_plot) It was about as libertarian an ideal as you can get, the plan was to destroy the houses of parliament and kill all the government leaders in one fell swoop. Of course, it would also have been an insanely savage act of what we now call terrorism, and I don't mean to equate libertarianism with violence. Still, some people in the UK still celebrate the anniversary of the failed attempt, even though I can't imagine it still has the same significance.
Ok, so the point of the post isn't a history lesson, nor is it a movie review. (Seriously though, see that movie if you haven't) The 5th of November had current relevance here in America because it catapulted a republican candidate* from sideshow status into major contention (as far as the main-stream media is concerned). On Nov. 5th Ron Paul raised over 4.2 million dollars towards his presidential campaign. That's 4.2 million IN ONE DAY! Apparently "V for Vendetta" has been an insanely effective rallying cry for the libertarians here in the US. Personally though, I think that it's more indicative of the fact that Ron Paul is the only one in the Republican debates who is even talking any sense. He's the only one to advocate withdrawal from Iraq, to argue completely against the use of torture, and the only one who seems to understand what the republicans used to stand for: smaller government.
It's ironic that a republican administration has beset upon Americans the largest intrusions of government into our lives in the course of American history. It's also proven to be catastrophic to their party. The rise of Ron Paul is proof that the old republicans in this country are starting to wake up and attempt to take their party back. I don't know if they'll be able to, the party is already splintering among dozens of different fault lines. Still, I'm glad to see this happening, because these are the republicans I feel much more comfortable with. I'd much rather argue with a republican that we should increase the minimum wage or have universal health care than argue with them that it doesn't matter whether or not they've done anything wrong, the government shouldn't be allowed to investigate them without a warrant.
Don't get me wrong, I think Ron Paul is insane. He's in favor of eliminating taxes, the FBI, the EPA, you know, the government. Also I've always been suspicious of libertarians, and I have an inherent distrust of anyone who joins the local militia and stockpiles supplies in their bunker. I think that organized governments are the greatest tools we have as a species for managing what has become an unreasonable amount of individuals living on this planet. I think that a government that works for the people instead of it's own self interest is the only answer to a myriad of problems that face a country. Still even a raging liberal like me knows that there are limits.
Incidentally, there's one other thing I want to bring up quick. It's not really related to the rest of the post, but it reminded me of it. Fascism does not actually mean "like the nazis", which is the colloquial definition it seems to have attained. It actually means the marrying of corporations with government towards the ends of having a corporate state. Kind of like oil companies determining energy policy, or insurance firms lobbying for the privatization of social security, or pharmaceutical companies writing health care policy and determining prescription drug coverage. Yeah, just the sort of thing that has been happening in Washington lately, that's the stuff.
* - every time I write the word "candidate" I mis-spell it "cantidate" at first. It just seems weird to me that the etymological root of that word would be "candid". I'm such a hippy sometimes, it frustrates me.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
Isn't it terrible when a political party is so fucked up that you can't help but enthusiastically root for the crazy guy, because the alternatives are simply too scary? I mean Ron Paul actually presents a logically consistent worldview that he can sincerely argue in favor of. He can even open his mouth without saying something that makes it clear he's a complete moron and completely against all the ideals this country was founded on. Makes me think that maybe there is hope for the GOP.
Though it would be nice if our only current hope for balanced two-party rule in our country wasn't crazy. But, after 7 years of Bush and his Republican party, I'll happily take what I can get.
By the way, check out my letter to the editor in the Chicago Tribune tomorrow. I'm gonna be famous!
Rich, you've finally gotten me to post on a matter other than trivial pusuit and frisbee.
You asked for it...
First, it must be pointed out that I have some libertarian ideals, but that characteristic is hardly categorical in nature. It is faulty to pigeon-hole somebody who simply says they are a "libertarian" because, depending on the issue, they could be considered contemporarily as a conservative or liberal depending on each particular issue. That is certainly the case with me. For example, when it comes to abortion rights or civil unions, I would be thought of as liberally-minded in my stances of social issues such as those, insomuch that I don't feel government has really any place to involve itself in such personal matters. Conversely, I believe that government should stay out of our pockets as much as possible, and not concern itself with economic programs that are well-intentioned but are doomed to fail, as has been the case with many taxpayer-funded cash cow programs over the past 40-50 years that have not solved, but DEEPENED the problems they were designed to solve. I recommend a book entitled "Basic Economics: Thinking Beyond Stage One" by Thomas Sowell, an economist and political commentator who makes the fundamental principles of economics not only crystal clear and accessible, but also enjoyable to read, which is nearly impossible to do. He also pinpoints times in history where everyone from political leaders to landlords, in their best intentions, typically will jump into economic pitfalls by making decisions that cause unintended opposite effects.
But anyway, libertarians are regarded as "classical liberals", those who hold individual freedom, small government and civil liberties as paramount ideals. I am a libertarian who believes in these tenets, but I also believe there is only one facet in our lives in which the federal government truly needs to be involved to the Nth degree, and that is to keep us safe domestically. Hence, I would never think that doing away with the FBI, NSA and the Department of Homeland Security would ever be a good idea. Does that mean that I believe that the war in Iraq was the correct war at the time? No. Does it mean that I condone illegal spying by my own government? No, although I can't say many of my rights have necessarily been infringed by government in an unprecedented way since 9/11, as you indicated in your post, though I know it's just one guy talking here. However, I do support our government taking a more pro-active stance to terrorism than they had between the 1960's and 1990's, when we were attacked hundreds of times without so much as a blink in response. Distractions such as the '60's assassinations and Civil Rights Movement, the '70's energy crisis, the '80's Cold War and bad clothing, and the '90's White House Penis Monologues kept us busy. A more pro-active approach in covert intelligence operations over the years probably could have prevented many of our issues now, but we really didn't have the spine to follow through with anything. Too much political calculation and not enough balls.
Other points:
-I think that in reference to the movie V is For Vendetta and your inherent distrust of those Libertarians who stockpile guns to overthrow their own government, I think you are slightly overreacting. Here's why: A mainstream movie is made that aligns with a plot from the year 1605 in England to overthrow the government, which in turn compels people to come out in droves for fundraising for Ron Paul. It has been a long time since fringe libertarians (whom many practical libertarians do not align themselves with, by the way) have had anything to latch onto in the mainstream, and this movie and this candidate simply energized that fringe base temporarily. I predict that when the presidential primaries heat up, and the thrill is gone, there won't be any real sustainable support for Paul than there would in any other year for a Libertarian candidate, and he will end up irrelevant. Other fringe idealists have broken out of the mold temporarily in the past, such as Ralph Nader of the Green Party in 2000, and Pat Buchanan of the Reform Party and Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11" energizing the far left Howard Dean prez campaign in 2004, but none of these three have turned the ideological tides of the two major political parties toward their points of view either, the way you say Paul might be doing.
-I would have to say both major parties are showing cracks all over the place, not just the Republican party. But I also think these cracks in both parties in the large scheme are insignificant. I think back in the 2004 elections, it would have been just as easy to say (and people all over the place were saying this) that the Democratic party was the one that was self-destructing after the Kerry defeat and the loss of seats, before they reorganized and had a very successful 2006 campaign. I believe the same will happen with the Republican party at some point near in the future, and then once again with the Democrats, etc. Political success, like the economy, is cyclical, and though issues of the day may in the short-term alter elections one way or another, there is too much inertia to really believe the pendulum is swinging one way or another.
Although I am a Libertarian, and do not align myself lockstep with either party's talking points, sometimes when you stand back, you do appreciate the balance of power that exists, that the two major parties, flawed as they are, will keep each other in check from falling into the dark pits of socialism or reactionaryism.
Dude, I HAD to inject something slightly different into this liberal orgy going on in here. =)
Ty, I had several different reactions to your comment. The first was "hey! ty finally posted about something substantive!" The second was "damn, that's alot of words". The third was of course, "this is awesome, we disagree on ALOT, and this is gonna be some fun arguin'"
Okay, I'm glad though that you did finally get in the discussion, because before I only really knew that you self identified as libertarian. That of course means different things to different people, just like democrat or republican or *shudder* independent.
First point - wow, do I not think you're a libertarian at all. Seriously, if you think that government should stay out of your pockets, but also believe in a strong national defense, how does that not line up with classic republican? Of course, not the current incarnation of republicans, but maybe the slightly more sane Goldwater republicans.
Second point - how could a libertarian not be a huge Patrick Henry fan, who so famously quoted "give me liberty or give me death"? Nowhere in the oath of the president does it say that he must protect US citizens from harm, but it does say that his sworn duty is to protect the constitution. If you don't believe that our basic freedoms are more important than our safety, then fuck libertarianism, do you really believe in america? Man, I can't help it, I'm blogging about this next, Pakistan will have to wait.
Third - I completely agree that I'm taking things a bit overboard with the whole "splintering of the party" thing with the republicans. Still, don't think that this two party system will last forever. It happened to the Whigs, and it can happen to the Republicans. I'm not willing to put money on it happening within the next 10 years, but I'd lay a solid amount on the next 50. Of course I doubt the world will look anything like what we would recognize by then.
Man, ty I feel like I'm picking on you a bit unfairly cuz the floodgates have been opened, and as yet I still don't know enough about what you believe so I'm still categorizing you and don't know the heart about what you believe in. Of course along with the guilt of that is the hope that if I provoke you well enough the discourse will be forced to continue :)
Haha. Do you sleep, Rich? I posted this at 12:20 this morning, and got up to find this at 6:30am.
You definitely succeeded in one thing...The most surefire way to provoke a response from somebody is not necessarily to disagree with them, but to question their HEART in what they believe in.
And yes, we in actuality hardly know each other, which is a vital point. We didn't grow up together, didn't go to college together. Heck, I didn't even know you until Mercenary, which was not even two years ago. I am at work right now, so I cannot go further than this, but I will post again on this today to leave no doubt in your mind as to my libertarian leanings, and how I've practiced it, not just preached it. And then we can move on to far more interesting topics.
What are the teams tonight? I'd say you and me, because based on Question Master(?), we fill the other's knowledge gaps pretty damn well.
OK. Not cool that after my lengthy post and discussions on here a couple days ago, that I was named by a certain person as simply the "Republican" at the Trivial Pursuit showdown last night. I was almost offended.
OK here's my deal. And excuse the laundry list. Just indulge me for a second. No one has reveled in American liberty more than I. I have lived in ten different states in my life and a foreign country, many of those moves voluntary. I went to two different high schools and three colleges, all in different parts of the country. I have held jobs as a little league coach, journalist, filmmaker/screenwriter, program coordinator at semeseter-long cultural diversity academic seminars in Hyde Park, cart pusher at CostCo, police/fire dispatcher, film festival administrator and projectionist, and digital marketing/market researcher, which is my current job now, all within a twelve-year period. Though at first glance this may look like I simply cannot hold a job, I left each and every one of these positions voluntarily, ready for the next thing that comes my way. Again, no one loves liberty and has taken advantage of the wonderful opportunities it offers more than I have. My freedom to get up tomorrow and move to Alaska, Florida or Maine is what I love so much about America. I know that many of my fellow ultimate players take advantage of this just like I do, to up and leave one place in exchange for another place, and embrace the challenge without hesitation. You see our teammates floating from place to place all the time. However, these same acquaintances of mine who do this also seem to take this freedom for granted, which I do not.
For a majority of this last 12-year time period, I had the typical libertarian view of government, which was one of apathy. Didn't really have much use for it. I certainly would have agreed with Mr. Patrick Henry and his profound statement in its original context at that point of my life. Anything that stood in the way of an American citizen’s liberty was an obstacle to be dealt with, and anything that provided means to that end was encouraged at all practical costs.
But then, the world suddenly became smaller. And I think 9/11 affected everyone in different ways, but everyone was affected in SOME way, some more than others. To me, my liberty had been attacked. And I slowly came to the realization that this new threat of violence against my freedom to live life as I saw fit was an obstacle that needed to be dealt with. That was the point in my developing belief in government’s role as our country’s protector. Because remember, anything that preserved or promoted my liberty was a noble means to a noble end. A strong national defense became that noble means toward that noble end of liberty. That is how I came to justify national defense, through a libertarian lens. HOWEVER, this does not mean that my enlistment of our nation’s defense to protect us trumps preserving the freedoms that we find so valuable in the first place (citizen spying, unwarranted arrests, etc.) And I think that is where you were not understanding my position in the last post. So I have been fighting a personal battle these last few years regarding what is and what is not justifiable in preserving liberty. I know that my freedom has not specifically been restricted as a result of domestic and international actions taken by our country over the last few years (nothing that I have wanted to do have I been restricted from doing.) However, I know that others have had different experiences, and I am sensitive to that. Bottom line: I do not think anyone has the true answer as to the line where effective, legal national security ends and preserving civil rights begins. This is too new of a world after 9/11. And after all, we are all at the mercy of the opinions of our leaders regarding this issue. But regardless of where that line of liberty should be drawn, I am not confident that we will see much change in the way of domestic surveillance, regardless of who will be in office throughout the next 20 years.
I do admire Barry Goldwater to an extent. He was a crackerjack, a true patriot, who called out his own party when it needed it (apparently solely responsible for verbally forcing Nixon to resign), and his liberal-leaning social beliefs aligned close to mine. Goldwater himself became a self-described libertarian as he entered his latter days of public service. However, I differ significantly with him in what he believed was truly justified to keep the country safe from the threat of Communism. He drew the line of liberty vs. national defense at a much different place than I would. Remember, he was an avid supporter of McCarthyism, a regrettable chapter of history we all would like to rewrite.
Finally, Rich, you could be correct in one of the major parties toppling in the next 50 years. I personally do not believe either one will, because of the massive media backing and its churning of the engine of public opinion that both parties have to lean on, a luxury that the Whigs never had. And truthfully, I hope it does not happen. My worst nightmare is that America loses its balance of power and falls into a socialist state or a police state, a dystopia that COMPLETELY destroys our liberties. As a citizen with libertarian beliefs, I believe the economic freedoms promoted by the right, and the social freedoms promoted by the left are in tandem too invaluable to lose, and if we do, then in my opinion, we’re fucked.
Ty,
If you're all for safety and taking a proactive stance at fighting terrorism, but want to preserve liberties, then why aren't you clearly on board with the Democratic party?
This Republican party has allowed this President to do the following illegal things:
1) Suspension of Habeus Corpus rights of TWO American citizens (that we know of). One of which was kept for an extremely long time without access to a lawyer, then eventually given access to one, but was held a total of 3.5 years without being charged with anything. Only reason Padilla was charged with anything after that time was because the Supreme Court threatened to take his case.
2) Unwarranted wiretapping, in direct violation of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Remember, the administration repeatedly lied, saying wiretaps were being done in accordance with the Patriot Act and other laws (i.e., with a warrant). We only found out about this by chance, which makes one wonder, how many other laws have they been breaking in secret? How many of those have been abuses of power, and not just "fighting terrorism"? We have no way of knowing the answer, because of Republican obstructionism to getting to the bottom of it.
3) Illegal collection of data from phone companies.
4) Use torture on detainees. Clearly, that's illegal due to the US being signatory to the Geneva Convention, however an argument can be made that while violating a treaty is illegal, it's been done enough by the US that it's really not a big deal.
Now, the Republican party has done NOTHING while all of this has occurred. Many Democrats (I'd say about half of them) have fought intensely to hold the administration accountable. They're the only ones who have tried to do so. The other Dems have still largely fought against it, they've unfortunately been willing to compromise on issues that our founding fathers would have died sooner than compromise on.
Now, keeping us safe. After 9/11 the president commissioned a bi-partisan group to look into how the attack happened, and what needed to be done to beef up US security to prevent another one. By the way, it took a great deal of pressure from relatives of 9/11 victims before the president and his Republican Congress allowed this commission to be formed. The commission proposed a set of recommended actions necessary to keep this country safe from terrorism.
Well, the President, and Congress didn't follow through on many of the recommendations. Remember, these are things that a bi-partisan group determined were necessary after over a year of research and testimony. The Democratic party promised to enact all of these recommendations if they were elected to control Congress in 2006. They were elected, and they finally got the recommendations passed in the US House. I really don't recall if they were passed in the US Senate, because many Republicans tried to stop the bill, but in any case the point is that the Democrats are largely the only ones taking the 9/11 commission report seriously.
Now, onto the causes of terrorism, which is why we're not safe in the first place. I don't think I need to write very much to explain how this administration, with the help of the Republicans in Congress, and with admittedly the help of about 50% of the Dems in Congress, have ignited a massive wave of anti-American sentiment around the world. This anti-American sentiment is what fuels terrorism. It's the ONLY thing that fuels terrorism. Logic would dictate that in order to have long-term security, our primary goal should be to reduce anti-American sentiment around the world. Unfortunately, the Republican party doesn't much care for logic, and so they continue to support policies that increase our future risk for terrorism (such as the Iraq war, aggressive foreign policy in general, amongst other things).
God, I love it. This is why I started this blog. Not as much so that I could rant about shit (which I love, don't get me wrong), but so I could get into discussions like this with friends. I love hearing from you guys.
I wish I had more time, but I have to be back at work soon. One thing though Ty, I can't stand hearing that "9/11 changed everything." Yeah, obviously it changed a lot about how we think about who will attack us and how. But did it change what we believe in? You're still infinitely more likely to die in a car crash, or from heart disease, or being murdered by an american than you are to die in a terrorist attack. Where does the fear come from that makes us so willing to loosen our freedoms? Seatbelt safety, national exercise programs, and gun control aren't what move politics, it's terrorism and national security. The "islamic extremists" aren't about to come invade the US, so then we're mostly fearful of the minute chance that they could take our lives? Listen, I'm all for controlling nuclear proliferation, that's a different genie in a different bottle I think, though you could argue that I'm wrong about that. We exalt the bravery of the men and women in our armed forces who fight to defend our freedoms, but we're not willing to stand up and do the same?
9/11 didn't change everything, we changed everything because of 9/11. Our leaders chose to do EXACTLY what the perpetrators of 9/11 hoped we would do. We stopped being America. We got ourselves bogged down in mindless wars, we trashed world opinion of us, and we made the terrorists more credible in the eyes of young middle eastern muslims. If I learned anything from 9/11, it's that fear is the most dangerous emotion. It can lead people to do completely irrational things that are against their own self interests. If you don't believe that the freedoms we're due as Americans are more important than your own safety, than your own life, then how can you adequately protect them?
watched V for Vendetta recently, loved it. eye-candy effects, amazing how much character they developed into a mask, then again, maybe he was more than a mask...
Post a Comment