|
Comment on this article |
View comments |
Email this Article
|
|
News :: Right Wing |
|
Antiwar.com Says "McCarthy Was Right!" |
Current rating: 3 |
by Justin Raimondo
Email: backtalk (nospam) antiwar.com (unverified!) |
14 Jul 2003
|
|
I haven't read Coulter's book, because I don't need to be convinced that McCarthy was right. The Senator pointed to the internal danger posed by Communist sympathizers. |
from "BOGUS FROM THE BEGINNING -- The backlash against the War Party's lies is only just starting"
Justin Raimondo, Antiwar.com, July 14, 2003
...The neocons are after Ann Coulter's blonde mane because she praises Senator Joseph McCarthy in her latest best-selling book, Treason: the unanimity of the outcry from the Establishment Right is truly a phenomenon to behold. Dorothy Rabinowitz, (in the War Street Journal) David Horowitz, her old enemies at National Review, all have expressed some variation of the verdict enunciated by Andrew Sullivan in the Sunday Times of London:
"One of the most reputable scholars who has studied the McCarthy era in great detail, Ron Radosh, is appalled at the damage Coulter has done to the work he and many others have painstakingly done over the years. 'I am furious and upset about her book,' he told me last week. 'I am reading it – she uses my stuff, Harvey Klehr and John Haynes, Allen Weinstein etc. to distort what we actually say and to make ludicrous and historically incorrect arguments. You might recall my lengthy and negative review in The New Republic a few years ago of [Arthur] Herman's book on McCarthy; well, she is ten times worse than Herman. At least he tried to use bona fide historical methods of research and argument.' Now Radosh has endured ostracism and abuse for insisting that many of McCarthy's victims were indeed Communist spies or agents. But he draws the line at Coulter's crude and inflammatory defense of McCarthy. 'I think it is important that those who are considered critics of left/liberalism don't stop using our critical faculties when self-proclaimed conservatives start producing crap.'"
I haven't read Coulter's book, because I don't need to be convinced that McCarthy was right. I would only note that among the most passionate defenders of Radosh against "ostracism and abuse" has been none other than … Ms. Coulter:
"Ronald Radosh is one of the nation's pre-eminent historians, but he is blacklisted from American universities because he wrote a book concluding that the Rosenbergs were guilty – a few years before decrypted Soviet cables were released proving they were guilty.
"Inasmuch as Radosh had once been a 'progressive' himself, a fatwa was inevitable. Radosh marched for the Rosenbergs. He attended candlelight vigils for the Rosenbergs. He was even personally acquainted with Pete Seeger! But after setting out to write a book proving the Rosenbergs innocent, his research led him to conclude otherwise. He was a liberal who rejected the faith. Under strict fatwa procedures, Radosh had to be banned from academia.
"As has been copiously detailed by John Judis in the liberal New Republic magazine, whenever Radosh is on the verge of being hired by a major university, the liberal wolf pack bays and suddenly the position disappears. Anonymous critics were quoted 'question[ing] his credentials.' One historian told Judis: 'I wouldn't hire a red-baiter like Ron.' Another said Radosh was 'not a historian at all.'"
Coulter has gone to the barricades in defense of Radosh, and this is how Radosh repays her – with smears. But smearing is his forte, in his new incarnation as a neoconservative. His latest pamphlet for the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies states that I am "in league with the most extremist anti-Semites in the Arab world" for merely reporting what Carl Cameron of Fox News reported back in December 2001, and I quote:
"There is no indication that the Israelis were involved in the 9-11 attacks, but investigators suspect that the Israelis may have gathered intelligence about the attacks in advance, and not shared it."
Why are the neocons so exercised by Coulter's book? Sullivan cattily disdains her as a "babe," indicating, in his case, a toxic mix of professional envy and sheer misanthropy. But the deeper reason for this all-out assault is ideological: the neocons hated McCarthy, and still do, because he pointed to the internal danger posed by Communist sympathizers, rather than the "real" enemy abroad. He was also a populist, and the neocons despise the masses, who need to be guided by "public intellectuals" such as themselves. The McCarthyites were, after all, aiming their main fire at their own government – in the neocons' view, an impermissible act of lese majeste. The legitimacy of government must never be questioned.
While I have no sympathy for Ms. Coulter's post-9/11 ranting, as my longtime readers know, one can only feel sympathy for her in her present situation, as she endures a public stoning by her former "friends." Spirited, beautiful, and totally right about "Tail-Gunner Joe," Ann Coulter is the latest victim of the neocons' vituperative campaign to cleanse the conservative movement of any elements that might challenge them.
As for Ronald Radosh, "reformed" ex-Communist and professional turncoat, his own character as a back-stabbing cretin is now firmly established. |
See also:
http://www.antiwar.com/justin/j071403.html
|
Comments
|
Coulter = McCarthy |
by Janet
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 3
14 Jul 2003
|
McCarthy was much worse than mere propaganda. The guy wanted a witch hunt. He had no real data about spies, his fake "list" of subversives was only a bluff used to intimidate political dissenters into self censorship, which is exactly what loudmouthed bullies like Coulter and Limbaugh are attempting to do now that Bush is attacking our civil liberties and murdering americans by the thousands.
Hey all you so-called conservatives, we have a constitutionally protected legal right to organize politically and voice political dissent in the US. If the people want to sympathize or support russian commies they have the right to do so. What's the point of freedom if jackasses like Coulter and McCarthy want to persecute those exercise it?
I thought Riamondo was supposed to be a libertarian. I'm wondering if he suffered brain damage from cerebral clot during his recent heart attack. |
|
Republican-Libertarian Despises The Poor, Calls Them Junkies |
by Sean Turner
seanreplies (nospam) yahoo.com (unverified) |
Current rating: 1
15 Jul 2003
|
America's Addiction
Sean Turner, SierraTimes.com-A Subsidiary of J.J. Johnson Enterprises, Inc., July 15, 2003
Last year, the federal government spent billions to deal with them. Millions of Americans are addicted to them in one or more of their various forms. They've broken the will of countless "consumers" for decades. Today, they are far worse than a generation ago, and without any obstacles, their path of destruction will continue to erode the very fabric of America. What am I referring to? If you guessed illegal drugs, then you're absolutely incorrect. The correct answer is: government "entitlements".
Federal "entitlement" programs come in many forms, and are known by a number of names like Social Security, "welfare", food stamps, Medicare, Medicaid, child nutrition, agricultural subsidies, etc. Soon, they may be known by a few more names like "universal healthcare", "prescription drug benefits", and "tax cuts for the working poor" (translation: "welfare lite"). Nevertheless, socialism by any other name is still socialism. Its "feel good" policies, utopian promises, and disastrous results mimic the rhetoric of your friendly neighborhood street-corner "pharmacist". Its wealth redistribution mechanisms are replete with subsidies that conceal failure, unearned income that replaces frugality and planning, and policies that discourage self-sufficiency.
Despite a plethora of history showing the rapaciousness of "entitlement" programs, millions refuse to kick the "habit", and continue to beg Congress (read, the "pusherman") for more money to satiate their appetite for dependency. Of course, Congress is unfailingly willing to comply, since supplying these "entitlements" satisfies the demand for dependency, and ensures an uninterrupted career in Washington. To further inculcate the notion that the word "entitlement" is apropos for the socialistic policies it encompasses, the federal government categorizes the spending for these programs as "mandatory". Yet, it considers military spending, an essential function of the federal government, to be "discretionary". Go figure...
Much of the current "welfare" or dependency state in America began in 1913 with the 16th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which gave Congress the power to collect taxes on income, and with the passage of the Social Security Act of 1935 initiated by President Franklin D. Roosevelt. The government, however, is not entirely to blame for the current trend toward socialism. Very often, if not always, members of Congress simply respond to what they perceive to be (or what actually is) the preponderance of demands from their constituency. If these demands are met, the voters repay the elected official with their votes, thus ensuring an enduring career of spending other people's money.
So how do we cure America of its addiction? Undoubtedly, the majority of our focus must begin with the electorate. Though Congress cannot be neglected totally, focusing primarily on changing the actions of elected officials has proven to be somewhat futile, as evidenced by the growing dependency of Americans on the government. We must begin with the education of the masses. Most are unfamiliar with basic economic principles, the history of various governments around the world, and the effects past and present of public policy. As the electorate increases its comprehension of these subjects, the voting patterns will begin to change. While the "withdrawal" caused by the elimination of the addiction may be too fearful a prospect for some, a citizen is more likely to shed his or her dependency if the consequences are completely understood.
In short, the cure is a matter of economics, as our representative form of government is nothing but a "political economy". Removing the supply will not eliminate the demand for "entitlements". It is the demand that must be removed from the electorate, and the supply will eventually follow.
-------------------------------------------------------
Sean Turner is a member of the Project 21 Advisory Council of the National Center for Public Policy Research, a regular columnist for RenewAmerica.us, GOPUSA.com, and a contributor to a number of political websites. Readers can write to him via the feedback form below. |
See also:
http://www.sierratimes.com/03/07/15/guestoped_st.htm
|
|
Re: Republican-Libertarian Despises The Poor, Calls Them Junkies |
by ML
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 7
15 Jul 2003
|
And, despite the headline that leads you to believe that whoever spammed this to the Indymedia network disapproves of the article, instead it seems that they are proud of this disreputable and false story.
The only "entitlement" programs that have seen any real growth in the last generation are corporate welfare and tax cuts for the wealthy. They think they are entitled to more of both with every election, yet we don't hear a hew and cry from REAL conservatives about these programs that reward those who got that way by screwing working Americans. |
|
Ron Paul's War With Socialists, Neo-Cons, And The U.N. |
by Ron Paul
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 3
15 Jul 2003
|
ABOUT "SOCIALISTS"
---------------------------------------
What Happened to Conservatives?
Ron Paul, Texas Straight Talk, June 14, 2003
"The so-called conservative movement of the last 20 years, starting with the Reagan revolution of the 1980s, followed by the 1994 Gingrich takeover of the House, and culminating in the early 2000s with Republican control of both Congress and the White House, seems a terrible failure today. Republicans have failed utterly to shrink the size of government; instead it is bigger and costlier than ever before. Federal spending spirals out of control, new Great Society social welfare programs have been created, and the national debt is rising by more than a half-trillion dollars per year. Whatever happened to the conservative vision supposedly sweeping the nation?
One thing is certain: those who worked and voted for less government, the very foot soldiers in the conservative revolution, have been deceived. Today, the ideal of limited government has been abandoned by the GOP, and real conservatives find their views no longer matter.
True limited government conservatives have been co-opted by the rise of the neoconservatives in Washington. The neoconservatives - a name they gave themselves - are largely hardworking, talented people who have worked their way into positions of power in Washington. Their views dominate American domestic and foreign policy today, as their ranks include many of the President’s closest advisors. They have successfully moved the Republican party away from the Goldwater-era platform of frugal government at home and nonintervention abroad, toward a big-government, world empire mentality more reminiscent of Herbert Hoover or Woodrow Wilson. In doing so, they have proven that their ideas are neither new nor conservative.
Modern neoconservatives are not necessarily monolithic in their views, but they generally can be described as follows:
-They agree with Trotsky’s idea of a permanent revolution
-They identify strongly with the writings of Leo Strauss
-They express no opposition to the welfare state, and will expand it to win votes and power
-They believe in a powerful federal government
-They believe the ends justify the means in politics - that hardball politics is a moral necessity
-They believe lying is necessary for the state to survive
-They believe certain facts should be known only by the political elite, and withheld from the general public
-They believe in preemptive war and the naked use of military force to achieve any desired ends
-They openly endorse the idea of an American empire, and hence unapologetically call for imperialism
-They are very willing to use force to impose American ideals
-They scoff at the Founding Father’s belief in neutrality in foreign affairs
-They believe 9/11 resulted from a lack of foreign entanglements, not from too many
-They are willing to redraw the map of the Middle East by force, while unconditionally supporting Israel and the Likud Party
-They view civil liberties with suspicion, as unnecessary restrictions on the federal government
-They despise libertarians, and dismiss any arguments based on constitutional grounds
Those who love liberty, oppose unjustified war, and resent big-brother government must identify the philosophy that is influencing policy today. If the neoconservatives are wrong- and I believe they are- we must demonstrate this to the American people, and offer an alternative philosophy that is both morally superior and produces better results in terms of liberty and prosperity. It is time for true conservatives to retake the conservative movement."
see: http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2003/tst071403.htm
ABOUT THE UNITED NATIONS
---------------------------------------
Ron Paul Sucess! UN Bill HR 1146
By Kent Snyder
Our opportunity is at hand! We wanted a vote on Congressman Ron Paul’s H.R. 1146 (withdrawing the United States from the United Nations) and we got it.
The House will vote late this afternoon or early evening on H.R. 1146 as an amendment to H.R. 1950 - Foreign Relations Authorization Act. The amendment reads: "Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, none of the funds authorized to be appropriated by this Act, may be obligated or expended to pay any United States contribution to the United Nations or any affiliated agency of the United Nations."
In plain language, that gets the U.S. out of the U.N. – no money, no membership.
This is not a dress rehearsal – this is your life. Put down your pencils, stop reading The New American and start contacting people...start with your U.S. representative and then spread the word. It’s time to stop talking about how bad the United Nations really is and do something about it: get the U.S. out of the U.N.!
Act now! Go to this site for more information.
Kent Snyder
The Liberty Committee
see: http://capwiz.com/liberty/mail/oneclick_compose/?alertid=2842501
ABOUT THE LIBERTY COMMITTEE
------------------------------------------
Dear friend of liberty,
Four years ago, a small group of men and women, united by their determination to restore liberty in the United States, formed The Liberty Committee. These men and women recognized that socialists have, for decades, been actively involved in our national legislative process; patiently, methodically, relentlessly working to make us subjects of the government, instead of the government being subject to us. The founding members of The Liberty Committee came together to fight these collectivists and reclaim our country from their clutches.
The national legislative process, I readily admit, is complicated, frustrating and, at times, boring. The socialists, however, do not let this deter them from their objective. They understand the laws we live by come from this process, and that is why they are involved in it.
To counter the socialists, thousands of Americans who treasure freedom have become actively involved with us in the national legislative process. These Americans hail from every congressional district in the country. Nineteen of my U.S. House colleagues have also joined our cause by their participation in my Liberty Caucus.
We must be victorious against the socialists' authoritarian agenda. I invite you to join us in this fight. As our numbers grow, so grows our influence. Together, with my caucus of liberty-minded colleagues on Capitol Hill and thousands of freedom-loving Americans throughout our nation, we can defend and advance liberty for ourselves, our children, and future generations.
For liberty,
Ron Paul
see: http://www.thelibertycommittee.org/about.htm |
|
Re: Republican-Libertarian Despises The Poor, Calls Them Junkies |
by I might be the "spammer"
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
15 Jul 2003
|
I wouldn't bet that the spammer is proud of this story -- I'd say its a warning to those who aren't paying attention. The Libertarians are not some harmless champions of the Bill of Rights, but self-obsessed facists.
And as for spamming - there are dozens of spammed articles every day. If you're going to take a stand against one, take a stand against them all. |
|
Swindled By The Great Republican Deception |
by Annetta I. Birlari
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 3
16 Jul 2003
|
SWINDLED BY THE GREAT REPUBLICAN DECEPTION
Lone Wolves hiding in the Bush
by Annetta I. Birlari
The modern American Libertarian is very different from European-variety libertarians (anarchist-socialists) like Noam Chomsky, they are instead direct descendants of Republicans Barry Goldwater & Ronald Reagan. In fact, three out of seven Libertarian Party presidential candidates were GOP members. This is not to say that the Republican Party is a quaintly homogenous whole, rather it's quite the opposite. Today's very visible NeoCon/Libertarian split is a sign of the intense battle for the soul of Lincoln's Party. But amidst the warring factions, Libertarians been promoting Barry Goldwater's arch-Conservative ideals hidden by the veil of "antiwar"
Yet as any true Libertarian will tell you, they are certainty not pacifists nor are they particularly friendly. Indeed many libertarians nurture a pathological hatred for communists, socialists, collectivists, or any other person who values the community as much as the individual. They are the politicos of "contract is king" where the financially weak must battle the privileged strong simply to exercise their "rights" to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Perhaps if a Libertarian had penned the preamble to the Constitution, it might have been worded as such:
"I the individual of likeminded individuals, in order to form a more perfect confederation, establish financial independence, insure a future tax-free, provide for a personal militia, prevent the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to myself and my posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the Likeminded Individuals of America."
What follows are a few well chosen insights into the mindset of the "Champions of Liberty"
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer Transcript
Barry Goldwater Interview
ROBERT MacNEIL: You were Mr. Conservative. In many ways, you started this. You were in the beginning of and symbolized the tide of conservatism that came in and brought Ronald Reagan into the presidency. What do you think conservatism has done for the country, having come to power, so to speak?
BARRY GOLDWATER: (former Arizona Senator and Republican presidential nominee) Well, you find in conservatism the same thing you found in liberalism: a split. You had liberals like Hubert Humphrey that were really trying to make the country go with liberalism, and you had others that didn't care what they said or what they appropriated, just so they made a noise that was formerly unacceptable to American thinking.
Now, conservatism has its others too. We have conservatives who literally want to do everything in the bag, and that's not possible. We have other CONSERVATIVES LIKE RONALD REAGAN, myself and most conservatives, who want to make progress on the proven values of the past, which to me is a whole essence of conservatism.
This doesn't mean we have to bring in abortion or school prayer or every other thing in the book or everything you find under the rocks. Make your progress on the proven values, the Constitution, the free enterprise system, and don't mess around with it."
SEE: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/remember/1998/goldwater_5-29a.html
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
The Greatest President We Never Had: Reflections on the death of Barry Goldwater, GOP "libertarian"
by David Nolan, Libertarian Party co-founder
In 1998, the party which represents Goldwater's ideals is the Libertarian Party, founded in 1971 as a reaction to what the GOP had become under Nixon and still remains today: The party of socially conservative big government. If the Republican Party had remained true to the principles of Barry Goldwater, the Libertarian Party PROBABLY WOULD NOT EXIST, because it would be unnecessary.
SEE: http://www.lp.org/lpn/9807-Goldwater.html
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Republican Liberty Caucus of Texas -- Our Purpose
In addition to giving disenfranchised smaller-government Republicans a home by creating incentive to stay in our party, the Republican Liberty Caucus of Texas helps avoid a potential exodus to Libertarian, Constitutional, and other third parties, which would end up WEAKENING OUR THIN MARGIN OVER DEMOCRATS, thus opening the door to big-government victories from leftist candidates. The Republican Liberty Caucus of Texas is proud to promote the GOP's smaller-government message. Our limited government, individual liberty and free market ideas will win by inclusion. THERE IS STRENGTH IN NUMBERS.
SEE: http://www.rlctexas.org/purpose.htm
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Rep. Congressman Ron Paul (RLC member) Backs Bush Decision in 2000 Election Scandal
December 6, 2000 - Congressman Ron Paul introduced a resolution in the House of Representatives Monday urging Congress to express its support for our Constitution in the midst of the presidential election dispute. H.Con.Res. 443 clarifies the nature of our federal system as a constitutionally limited republic, rather than a democracy...
"This resolution should be an interesting litmus test for Congress," Paul concluded. "Some members are quick to discard the Constitution when they disagree with the results of the electoral college. The COLLECTIVIST LIBERALS want popular elections because they know their constituencies are concentrated in certain heavily populated states. They want to nullify the voting power of the smaller, PRO-LIBERTY STATES. Supporters of my resolution can send a strong message that every state still matters, and that liberty is more important than shifting majority sentiment."
SEE: http://www.house.gov/paul/press/press2000/pr120600.htm
* * * * * * * * * *
What is the Relationship Between the Republican Liberty Caucus and the Libertarian Party? Recently the RLC has received some specific questions about our relationship with the Libertarian Party. RLC Treasurer Mike Holmes responds:
Q: Is the RLC made up of 'card-carrying' LPers who work with the GOP because it may be more politically expedient or are we "defectors" who "can't give up their libertarian roots"?
A: I'll attempt to answer this question though I reject in part one of the premises. Also, we have no real way of knowing how many members are "card carrying" LP members.
I personally am a lifetime LP member, having done so for the incredibly cheap price of $100 in 1973. Chairman Clifford Thies also has a history with the LP as their former national treasurer. RLC founder Eric Rittberg was a longtime LP activist as were Executive Director Tom Walls, newsletter editor Phil Blumel, our counsel Alan Turin and Virginia RLC chair Rick Sincere. Some of us participate in local LP events and are delegates to the LP national convention. Other RLC board members were never members of the LP.
A survey we conducted in 1996-97 indicated that about a third of our members usually vote for the LP. I would estimate that probably fewer than half of our members were in the LP and less than 25% probably still are. We do get a large number of inquiries these days from LPers looking for more successful political endeavors.
I reject the term "defectors" (as in "defectors from the LP") since one neither has to leave the LP to join the RLC nor is one defecting from anything by joining the RLC. It's not an either-or-choice.
We don't target LP members in our recruiting efforts, but I presume our regular reason advertising does reach them. Our in-person outreach is usually done at GOP events.
Our founding chairman was Roger MacBride, and a past chairman of the RLC was Ron Paul, and John Hospers is on our honorary advisory board. That's three out of seven LP Presidential candidates. We do not believe anyone has to worry about their "libertarian roots" by joining or working with the RLC.
I will stack them up against anyone the Libertarian Party has to offer any day of the week. One might observe, rightly, that the RLC has always had the support of the intellectual soul of the Libertarian Party, judging from those just listed.
Contrary to what the LP propaganda would have you believe (and since I used to be their chief propagandist, I know something about this) the LP has no monopoly on the concept of libertarianism and merits recognition in the political marketplace only by virtue of their achievements, not some honorific claim to superiority.
I believe many libertarians support both groups; the LP for reasons of radicalism (being able to promote a party platform that is purely libertarian), the RLC for reasons of practicality. However, there have always been libertarians active in the GOP (Robert Taft, Karl Hess and many others.) even though the GOP is not primarily a libertarian political party by any means.
The RLC promotes a policy of working with the LP whenever possible. This has its limits. Clifford Thies, myself and Roger MacBride even traveled to the Libertarian National Committee post-election 1992 meeting in Las Vegas to make this policy explicit and personal. Unfortunately, except for a few on the LNC, we were met with hostility and disrespect (especially to MacBride, who got the LP their only electoral vote!). We were treated rudely by a bunch of jerks who couldn't even bear to hold any discussion about the 1992 election results one month after it happened, and nervously laughed and joked whenever Andre Marrou's (the 1992 LP candidate for President) name happened to come up in conversation. This is fantasy game (role-playing) politics at its worst. Whether it is still the case remains to be seen.
As a role-playing fantasy game type of political party, the Libertarian Party members have assumed their roles, party chair, presidential candidate, campaign manager, et cetera, knowing this isn't for real. They take the internal politics very seriously but deep down, realize that they won't be making any real political decisions or actually get elected to political office. So they can enjoy the game without regard to real-world consequences of working in a democratic process in a largely non-libertarian setting. This role-playing encourages grandiose ideological huffing and puffing over policy and platform and is great entertainment and good for morale. We all enjoy hearing unvarnished libertarian analysis. But all too often, those LPers who actually want to get elected in the real world find themselves denounced and rejected by the LP for deviating from the fantasy of being heroic Libertarian knights of the round table. The few LPers who have gotten themselves elected in the past quickly find themselves ignored or criticized. Real politics is not compatible with the fantasy game of LP politics. This might not be descriptive of what the current LP is trying to do, but this is what we have experienced in the past.
The LP at most state and local levels is cooperative, and one of our former RLC Board members is now an LP state chair. An RLC member who is a former LP state chair and U.S. Senate candidate has recently signed up as a surrogate speaker for an incumbent U.S. senator for his re-election effort. So it can go both ways. In California, we endorsed LPer Dick Rider's non-partisan bid for San Diego County treasurer.
Our policy is that we only help Republicans in partisan elections if there is a Republican running; non-partisan races aren't an issue. We would lose our credibility if we endorsed LP candidates against Republicans, as the GOP is both very mindful of this and is somewhat suspicious of libertarian Republicans anyway. We might endorse an LPer is there is no Republican in a partisan race. Individual members can and do support whomever they wish.
Today, most of our members may vote for LP candidates from time to time (especially for President) but most haven't been active or even members of the LP. We appeal to constitutionalist, limited-government types of all kinds, including many who may describe themselves as principled conservatives. However, the RLC is open about calling ourselves the organized wing of the libertarian Republican movement. As small "l" and "soft" libertarians, we are not hung up about labels nor do we focus on excommunicating those whose libertarianism differs from ours or those libertarians who choose to emphasize mainstream issues instead of the controversial ones. We are about making libertarianism an asset, not a liability, in politics.
My personal view is that the LP is no longer a real political party. It is a political education vehicle with the form of a political party but one in which its primary purpose is to build the organization rather than to elect libertarians to public office. It is no longer capable of electing anyone to office under the partisan Libertarian banner and rarely tries, other than symbolically. Depending on the measure, it is the fourth or fifth "third party" in American politics, behind the Reform, Taxpayers, American, Green, et cetera, depending on the race.
We in the RLC believe that a healthy LP is actually good for us, since it demonstrates the political appeal of radical libertarian ideas and policies. We in turn promote slightly less radical versions of said ideas (in some cases) and work to elect libertarians to Republican Party and public office. We aren't about manifestos or chest-beating, but about helping our friends and finding new ones.
We look forward to LP types working with the RLC and believe that we are slowly but surely moving libertarianism into the big tent of the GOP, whether anyone else likes it or not. We are finding more and more Republicans in office who identify with our efforts and believe that all libertarians will enjoy working towards making the GOP more and more libertarian. The Republican Party is open for grabs right now and we believe we have the best ideas out there. Our challenge is finding and assisting those in the GOP working to make that happen.
SEE: http://www.afn.org/~afn04641/holmes1.html |
|
