The Enemy of My Enemy--Still My Enemy
There's been a lot of buzz in the blogosphere about a new group calling itself Patriots To Restore Checks and Balances, featuring several conservative icons and organizations who have come out against the administration's Patriot Act extension proposal.
While this is interesting and politically important, and it's fine to note a split in conservative ranks over an issue where Democrats have been largely alone in objecting to the Bushies' egregious overreaching, there's a tone creeping into some of the liberal commentary that is disturbing.
My friend the esteemed Matt Yglesias, for example, did a TAPPED post today suggesting that Grover Norquist's participation in this new group shows that he's, well, not all bad. Elsewhere in the progressive blogosphere, I've run across several positive references to Paul Weyrich and David Keene, generally along the lines of "let's hear it for the real conservatives."
And of course, Bob Barr, former wignut congressman from my home state of Georgia, and Clinton Impeachment Manager, has practically become a hero in some progressive corners for his Patriot Act and NSA arguments.
To use the title of Larry David's great show, in all seriousness, folks, I think it's time to Curb Your Enthusiasm for right-wingers who happen to agree with you on this one issue. Matt, Grover Norquist is all bad; if you look up "bad" in the dictionary, you see his photo. He is not just the designer of the infernal K Street Project; he's the designer of the entire contemporary conservative movement's most unsavory features, a guy that makes Karl Rove look like a piker. And he truly and profoundly hates all of us and would like to see us dead, along with virtually all of what we care about in public policy.
Paul Weyrich is not corrupt like Grover, but he's the beating heart of social-conservative wignuttery, and has been for eons. Do those toasting him for his brave resistance to Bush know what life would be like in a society designed by Paul Weyrich? Pick your least favorite medieval century, and you'd be close.
Another charter member of PRCB caught my eye: the Gun Owners of America. This is a group founded to provide an alternative to the gutless liberal sellouts of the NRA. They favor mandatory gun ownership,
in part because they think it's necessary to keep open the option of violently overthrowing the government of the United States.
These people haven't stopped being our enemy just because they are the enemy of our enemy on one issue. And they have their own disreputable reasons for being Bush's enemy even on that issue. There's the common gun-nuttery, to be sure. Weyrich doesn't trust a government led by Bush and Cheney because he considers them dangerously liberal, mainly because they've failed to deliver on the promise to criminalize abortion and roll back the rights of women and minorities. The Gun Owners crowd objects to the Patriot Act extension on exactly the same grounds that the Militia movement objected to any federal police powers under Clinton.
As for Grover, let's remember he's the Starve the Beast messiah, the guy who wants to shrink government to a size where it can be "drowned in a bathtub." Of course he doesn't like excessive executive powers; he doesn't like any government powers, other than the power conferred on him as a big Washington Wheel. As for the Patriot Act, have we all forgotten Norquist's obsession with turning American Muslims into a GOP constituency group? Could that have something to do with his motives for opposing a Patriot Act extension?
I make these points in no small part because I'm concerned that some progressives have gotten so obsessed with one set of Bush outrages that they are forgetting about all the rest of them.
I oppose a permanent Patriot Act extension myself, and deplore the NSA spying campaign and the administration's imperial rationale for it. But no, I don't think these issues are more important, politically or substantively, than everything else put together: tax policy, corruption, Iraq, terrorism, Social Security, the economy, the federal budget, abortion rights, women's rights, minority rights, election rights, gun safety, energy independence, and on and on. Embracing people who are our bitter opponents on all these subjects shows a skewed sense of priorities.
Perhaps I'm overreacting to a handful of blog posts, but there's a New Coalition scent in the wind that bears some reconsideration. And Lord knows there's something wrong when a guy like me, who's often suspected of insufficiently vicious partisanship, has to point out that Grover Norquist and Paul Weyrich are by any standard far across the barricades from anything progressive.
Hooray! Good for you Ed, I was starting to feel all alone and wondering what was in the Kool-Aid of my fellow progressives. By all means, let's celebrate a crack in the conservative monolith.
But this new organization is a pack of rabid jackals who need to be put down for the safety and security of our country. Just because the administration is also comprised of dangerous fiends does not make this new group any more acceptable.
January 18, 2006 2:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Time to quote Robert Mitchum in Out of The Past:
"[He ]can't be all bad. No one is. "
"Well, [he] comes the closest."
January 18, 2006 2:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
I still hope Grover has Abramoff land on top of him (and Ralph Reed too) and have nothing but contept for Barr. But that doesn't mean I can't hope they inflict political damage on King George.
January 18, 2006 2:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think one has to separate message from messenger.
For starters, there exists good libertarian ideas. No, preperty rights are not the main bedrock of human rights, no, taxes for the common weal are not evil, but yes, personal liberty and personal dignity is important. Liberty is not a progressive idea, but it is a good idea.
Second, to the degree that gun nuts are caring about personal liberty, they are potential allies. Mind you, many of them have only vague ideas about economic issues like deficit or world trade balances and are conservative because they are gun nuts (or hunters, or sportsmen, or paranoid suburban home owners). If we have to compromise on any of the social issues, we can make a compromise with gun nuts and remain philosophically and morally consistent.
Third, some people are now right because they are paranoid which in ordinary times means you invent the dangers that do not exists, and in extraordinary times means that the wolf finally appeared.
Forth, it is not such a bad talking point "even a died-in-the-wool conservative like ...". One could add "with whom I do not agree on 9 out of 10 issues". May be one could wonder if Grover Norquist is not in the position of a magician apprentice, as the corrupt culture of K-Street Project that he helped to spawn evolved in authoritarian direction (while he wanted it to be merely corrupt).
January 18, 2006 2:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Still, one can only welcome any cracks in the Stalinist unity of the conservative movement. It shows that at least a few key activists are prepared to uphold their misguided principles at the risk of losing power (and/or close ties those in power). After watching conservatives fail to object to Medicare Prescription Drugs, spiralling deficits, & dramatic federal spending growth, it looked as if not one of them was going to let a little principle get in the way of holding on to power. Sure, it's not much, and it doesn't make them progressive allies: but at least it suggests that their cynicsm has run up against some kind of limit.
January 18, 2006 3:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
On substantive grounds, you're absolutely correct. People who are sincerely toasting Grover Norquist for his "intellectual honesty" are a little too desperate for good news. But that doesn't mean progressives shouldn't consciously make as much noise as possible about the right's intramural sparring.
It's a sad fact of life that TV news outlets decide newsworthiness on one metric: volume. I say pretend you care more than you do, and make republicans discuss it on the sound-byte circuit. Really, where's the high road gotten anybody recently?
January 18, 2006 3:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'd like to agree with Kilgore for once, at least in part.
The fact that we're hoping for a faction of Republicans to save us is an index of our own feebleness. Several of the checks and balances have failed -- the press, the opposition party, and to a degree, the courts.
It's really like we're in an authoritarian one-party state, and the rest of us can just watch the Republican intraparty struggle.
The frightening thing is that the Bush loyalists are worse than Grover Norquist. And Bush, the Ultimate Leader, may quite possibly decide to purge his intellectuals and ideologues, and rely entirely on the parasites, lackeys, and goons who make up the rest of the Republican Party.
January 18, 2006 3:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Kilgore nailed it. Giving any lip service to people like Norquist is extremely dangerous and foolish even. That actually plays right into his hands as we stay one step behind his mission to defame government by any means. We can’t invite him to be part of the solution. How can someone who is the unrepentant root cause of the problem be part of the solution?
Already there are many ill informed moderates and conservatives saying "they're all bad" which plays directly into Norquist’s message. The last thing we need to do is lend him credibility as he derides the very concept of good governance. If we fail to differentiate between good governance reform, and laissez-faire “reform” then we’ve already lost.
This corruption isn’t transferring power back to the people. It goes to the next power waiting in line: Big Business. Similarly, under Norquist’s laissez-faire vision, power will not vanish or magically transfer back to the people; it will be taken by private interests, i.e. Big Business and plutocracy.
What could be more in tune with the ultimate outcomes of the Norquist vision than Big Business running the country? Only under Norquist it wouldn’t be called corruption because it would be legal! This corruption isn’t just greed, it’s also ideological as many lobbyists beholden to Big Business hate government so much they gleefully break the law, even consider it the right thing to do. Ideological parallels to Norquist.
January 18, 2006 3:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
I totally disagree that 'liberty is not a progressive idea'. Take a look at all the contemporary debates on whether or not to secure or expand liberty and take a look at what side progressives and liberals are and what side reactionaries and conservatives are: everything from gay marraige to abortion rights, etc. indicates that, as usual, it is liberals who stand up for liberty.
I agree with everything else you had to say, though - it is important to make common cause when the issues are this important. Your point about 'even a rock-ribbed Republican like so-and-so' is especially important.
But seriously, it is important to distinguish that modern American conservatism has never yet sided with the expansion of liberty, ever. The only time they have even sided with the preservation of liberty in any way is in the arena of gun rights (where the fundamentals were never under threat, unlike say with gay marraige where even the fundamental notion still doesn't exist in most places).
January 18, 2006 3:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
It shows that at least a few key activists are prepared to uphold their misguided principles at the risk of losing power (and/or close ties those in power).
I suspect that the impetus is less about "upholding principles" and more about preventing the loss of power. Even wingnuts like Norquist know that if you get TOO blatant, you'll scare the sheeple into voting for the "other guys."
January 18, 2006 3:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
"I think one has to separate message from messenger."
Yes, and if we all did that all the time I'd agree with you. However, in the real world there are things like leadership and credibility which greatly influence how the message is received. It’s not rational or exact, and the messenger is fundamentally intertwined with the message.
People like Norquist ultimately deride the very concept of good governance. That is his core message and will not change.
Rhetoric on "individual liberty" will not fill the power vacuum of a reduced government, Big Business will. The outcomes of corruption and the outcomes of the Norquist ideology are identical. Dismantling government and Big Business plutocracy are the exact same thing, one inevitably follows the other.
The present corruption is the exact same outcome as the Norquist ideology. It’s extremely foolish to allowing him to feign innocence for corruption as he works tirelessly to erode faith in good governance which is then immediately replaced by faith in plutocracy and corruption.
January 18, 2006 3:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
The issue of Bush breaking the law and ruling himself above the law is far more important than tax reform, etc., though the Iraq lies are part of the imperial hubris.
A democracy depends on the rule of law, everything else follows. This is a constitutional crisis that has little to do with left/right ideology, that why we need to encourage a unified front (on this issue) to save our constitutional system.
January 18, 2006 3:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just a thought: Before WWII we hated communists. We hated that Stalin signed a non-aggression pact with Hitler. Then Hitler invaded Stalin's fiefdom, and Stalin became our good buddy. After WWII, when Hitler was no longer around, we hated Stalin and all communists and the horses they rode in on. So, let's perhaps not say the enemy of my enemy is my friend, but the enemy of my enemy can be a temporary ally only to become my enemy when times change again.
January 18, 2006 4:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bush, the Ultimate Leader, may quite possibly decide to purge his intellectuals and ideologues, and rely entirely on the parasites, lackeys, and goons who make up the rest of the Republican Party
What intellectuals? They’re all goons, parasites, and lackeys; the royal court.
Bush, the lobbyists, Norquist, etc are all born and bred in the same ideological bubbles, owing their existence entirely to Big Business. Where does their ideology, money and power all come from? Who funds the rt-wing think tanks, creates and disseminates the dogma?
Where was the grass roots movement to privatize Social Security?
“Intellect” needs to have some impartiality to be valid. I don’t consider regurgitating a party line drilled into a person by their handlers as “intellect” no matter how well rehearsed and clever it may be; whether it’s a Union or Big Business axe grinder, it’s not an intellect, it’s a trained animal.
We need to stop pretending these guys have intellectuals or grass roots popularity. What they have is a corporate funded machine. Without plutocracy in America, the Bushs and Norquists and K-Street project all cease to be.
January 18, 2006 4:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
HoppyCalif - I think you have a bit of a false distinction between Bush and Norquist. To say Norquist is an enemy of Bush is absurd. It's a tactical sacrifice, good stage managing, show. The smartest thing Bush could do right now is pass his canteen to Norquist and tell him to continue the good fight without him. That is certainly what the powers behind the throne would want of both of them.
Bush, as bad as he is, is still only one of many heads on this Hydra, and people like Norquist reside much closer to the heart. Yes Bush is powerful, and corrupt, and a terrible danger, and has stuck his neck way out. I hope the SOB is impeached.
Going after Bush is very important, but without also going after the root ideology and people like Norquist, it’s a self defeating game of whack-a-mole. Norquist and his ideology, the machine of corruption, the lobbyists, Big Business, plutocracy, Ayn Randians, etc. togeather form the outline of the root cause of the problem. Once Bush, Abramoff, and Delay are gone, a new crop will spring up immediately, with fresh faces and a clean slate.
It’s not about Bush, or Delay, etc. It’s about Bush-ism, Delay-ism, and Norquist-ism. Those are one and the same.
January 18, 2006 4:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
I suspect that the impetus is less about "upholding principles" and more about preventing the loss of power.
Bingo!- I was just getting ready to note that most of these guys (especially Norquist; in fat, this is mostly about him) are all about protecting the brand, because they're not going to waste energy defending a lame-duck president who seems increasingly unlikely to be able to pass any of their pet initiatives anyway. They don't mind a minor GOP split and some controlled losses as long as the bad taste in voters' mouths dissipates quickly so new "reformers" (did you see The Daily Show's bit on that last night?) can grab the baton. These people will still be lurking, plotting, & dealing, to Democrats' detriment, long after GWB has sold his prop ranch & moved to some gated suburban masion, and they are establishing their positions for that time.
Accept their statements as only sensible, but do not rely on them for credibility or a veneer of popularity... we have to own this issue, and sharing it with our enemies will only weaken our position.
January 18, 2006 4:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
The real virtue of having Conservative with real bona fides come out against Bush's attacks on our civil liberties is the power it gives to the Democrats on those very issues. What it means is that the Democratic attack simply cannot be cast as a purely partisan issue.
Now, if Democrats decry Bush as attempting to set himself outside the law, it will be heard, not automatically dismissed.
Democratic politicians should just use these Conservatives, extract all the political juice they have to offer, then spit them out.
Just as, for example, many Democrats were used to give political cover for the Bush WH in a myriad of ways, then turned on without remorse when their own re-election campaigns were launched.
January 18, 2006 4:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your point is well taken, and entirely correct. Norquist is a nutjob (an immensely powerful nutjob, but a nutjob nonetheless) who bears a great deal of the responsibility for the catastrophically terrible state of the nation's finances. Norquist was behind every single one of the Bush tax shifts (they aren't really cuts, because they just shift costs into the future), and we should never forget that.
January 18, 2006 4:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
An insightful comment, frankly0, IMHO.
We Democrats want to reclaim/recover Colorado, Montana, the Dakotas, and the Southwest.
To do that we've got to rid ourselves of the the image the party has of being strongly gun-control and elitistly anti-hunting -- an albatross around our necks which has little current political value.
The down-and-dirty way of accomplishing that goal is to become associated in the minds of gun owners with libertarian policies supported by their associations. We don't have to sign on with Norquist and Weyrich, but we do have to be recognized by folks like Bob Barr when his doings are reported in the NRA club news.
January 18, 2006 5:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bingo!- I was just getting ready to note that most of these guys (especially Norquist; in fat, this is mostly about him) are all about protecting the brand, because they're not going to waste energy defending a lame-duck president who seems increasingly unlikely to be able to pass any of their pet initiatives anyway.
BINGO! is exactly right. That post deserves a 6 rating.
Norquist's libertarian BS is just a ruse for defaming government to usher in plutocracy. Bush is doing the exact same thing. These guys are on the same team.
Bush spends a lot on corporate welfare and totally busts the budget. Somebody like Norquist comes in and says see how inept the government is, and that Democrats would be even worse, and that's why we should dismantle government, starting with regulations on corporations.
Bush botches Iraq becasue he's too disdainful of government institutional wisdom. Instead he takes a rather laissez faire approach to Iraq, Rumsfeld dismisses the complete breakdown of law and order as "democracy is messy" and Bush sends in a bunch of private commandos and private contractors on the advice of "intellectuals" raised in the Rt Wing think tanks funded by corporate America. At the same time Norquist argues that everything should be privatized and for complete Ayn Randian laissez-faire dismantling of government, and a soldier of fortune/ survivalist mentaility on guns and the military.
There are plenty more examples.
Bush, Norquist, Delay, Abramoff are just different faces of the same thing. Don't be fooled.
January 18, 2006 5:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Norquist of course might be trying to sure up his reputation. However, Ellen hit upon the distinction we should consider making. I am inclined to libertarism to the extent that people should be allowed to worship, love and believe what they wish. Norquist's libertarianism is so government is out of the way so that there is no sense of community and he and the wealthy can maurad over those with less.
Issues like gun-control and hunting strikes me as more of an urban versus rural debate just as prohibition partially was. We might be glad that Norquist is giving Bush problems but where are all the Democrats. If the Democrats cannot stand up to Bush and protect our rights why do we need them?
January 18, 2006 5:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ellen - good post.
What we really need are Democrats who can sincerely bury the hatchet on lame issues like gun control which has gotten totally ideological and become a culture war out of control. My home town, San Francisco, recently banned handguns and while I'm not a handgun owner, it makes me want to buy one 7 miles away where they're legal just becasue the ordinance is so incredibly stupid and pointless and wrong.
Having said that, we need to appeal to gun owners directly in meaningful ways by ending this stupid culture war and respecting cultural/regional differences. Scandinavians are armed to the teeth and yet have very low gun violence rates. It is fair to say guns don't kill people, people kill people. The cultural crusade to dictate values on gun control needs to end.
At the same time we need to highlight where we share common cause and value liberty, and a good way to do that is pointing out how many of the Libertarian pols are really alligned with Big Business and corporate America. They don't seek to increase Liberty, they seek to replace government with Plutocracy. That's something Libertarians can appreciate, and only those not alligned with Big Business can deliver.
January 18, 2006 5:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree that progressives should not be defending Norquist, et al in any way. But that’s not to say they shouldn’t be used. If they agree on something from their own twisted logic, so what? It’s easy enough to agree with an outcome arrived at by different reasons. (I think many norms are acceptable to a wide range of people because they figure them differently).
Many people are obsessed with the NSA domestic spying and related issues (along with the corruption cases) because these are potential criminal problems that can spell defeat for the Republicans. And the only way the spying and torture abuses will reach critical mass entailing investigations and perhaps some form of political censure is if conservatives speak out. Republicans control all branches of federal government and the only way they’ll act on this is if the media pressures them. Politicians may act on pressure from “constituents” but it is only when that uproar is made public and disseminated to the masses with the media megaphone.
Offhand, I can hardly remember an issue going back years that wasn’t framed as partisan by the media, unless both parties had people railing against it. Until Barr and others start screaming about this, it will be tagged as more democratic whining and an attack on our great protector. Right wing outrage doesn’t always help, though. I think politicians like McCain and Specter sometimes play the role of diffusers. They make early statements about looking into things and then let them die or reroute them. Still, none of the other issues mentioned will be resolved for the better until these guys are gone. This is the best chance of that happening, but it will only happen if the Right gets scared by its own excesses.
January 18, 2006 6:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
If Norquist or Barr wants to attack Bush don't look to me to insist that they stop it. I will just stand there and clap. That is not nearly the same thing as lauding either man, something I will not do. But, I am willing to pass them some arrows if they run short.
January 18, 2006 6:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
There are many shades of red in nature, and we can argue about how red something is. But if you take a pack of your basic eight Crayolas, only one of them is red. If someone argues that the one that the rest of us see is blue is red, they are not being honest. That's what I see going on lately. They're not even arguing that the orange one is red. They're trying to insist that the blue or green one is red, and that we are not only fools but knaves as well for not seeing it.
I spent the day going back and forth in my own blog with one of our denizens about the whole plantation comment controversy. Sometimes it can be fun to go back and forth. But sometimes, reading the same mininformation or even outright lies presented over and over again long after they have been proven to be wrong just makes you want to give in to madness.
I hesitate to bring this up here, but its been tugging at the back of my mind for some time now, and it came to the forefront reading your dead on (IMHO) comments about Bushco and Big Business. Isn't there a name for a form of government that unites (largely simple-minded and jingoistic) authoritarian government and big business into an interconnected power structure?
Maybe its the cold medicine; I'll be interested to see what others think.
January 18, 2006 6:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
The idea Norquist is "shooting arrows" at Bush is silly.
He's attempting to take credit for Democratic arrows which have already been shot and hit the mark. He's never going to tell his constituents anything they don't already know about Republican corruption.
Norquist is just attempting to fend off heat from his constituents as they become aware of the crooked stuff he, and the Republicans he backed, have been wrapped up in and have their finger prints all over.
What else can he do? The only notice people need to take of his pathetic attempts to distance himself from Bush, is to mention how pathetically the rats flee the sinking ship.
Anyone who thinks that makes him an ally... or a help to reform... needs to recheck their math. Adding a big zero does not increase the sum total.
January 18, 2006 7:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
The real virtue of having Conservative with real bona fides come out against Bush's attacks on our civil liberties is the power it gives to the Democrats on those very issues.
Sorry, I think you have your casue and effect backwards.
People like Norquist are not telling the public anything they don't already know, they're just trying to cover thier butts. What that means is that Norquist already realizes how busted Bush is, and how much that endangers him.
He's not empowering or legitimizing this issue, he's running for cover because the issue is already legitimate and powerful, and may be coming for him next.
Yes, it makes sense to deride the GOP for going to pieces as all the rats try and save themselves from scandal. That in one sense does add a sort of Republican verification that the scandals are real. One can say "the scandals must be real, becasue look how all these rats try and run for cover."
But saying something like "the respectable GOP Republican Norquist also admits Bush is crooked" is just stupid. Norquist would only admit it if the public already knew, and it aids him in covering his ass.
January 18, 2006 7:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Norquist and Barr are intellectuals and ideologues, and they actually have political goals. There are plenty of people in the Bush administration who have only short-term goals in terms of power, revenge, and plunder. You're fooling yourself if you think that there aren't worse people than Norquist and Barr in the Republican Party.
"Intellectual" is not a buzz word. It just describes people who work with ideas in a certain way. There were Nazi intellectuals, though Hitler killed them off.
You put so much overkill into your post that it barely means anything.
January 18, 2006 7:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Isn't there a name for a form of government that unites (largely simple-minded and jingoistic) authoritarian government and big business into an interconnected power structure?
Yes, and we both know it: fascism.
A lot of people think calling Bush and company fascist is hyperbole. That’s because the media has irresponsibly personified fascism in movies and literature as cartoonish and easily recognizable. We tend to think of fascism personified by almost absurdly exaggerated evil, with funny mustaches, facial tics, lots of yelling, and genocide.
People think anyone who isn’t as obviously crazy as Hitler or Mussolini viewed through a lens of history can’t be a “fascist.” What people forget is that the world didn’t find out how crazy and dangerous they were until it was too late.
In the meanwhile they just seemed like charismatic leaders with an authoritarian bent, hawkish, and a penchant for distributing power amongst their patrons which tended to be private wealthy individuals accustomed to absolute power in their own spheres and seeking to expand their power. Hence fascism.
January 18, 2006 8:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Take a look at all the contemporary debates on whether or not to secure or expand liberty and take a look at what side progressives and liberals are and what side reactionaries and conservatives are: everything from gay marraige to abortion rights, etc. indicates that, as usual, it is liberals who stand up for liberty.
Well that's only one definition of liberty. Other elements of contemporary liberalism, like environmentalism, the regulatory state, politically correct speech etc. are all restrictions on liberty, even if they are done for the best of reasons.
Liberty is one of those things that both liberals and conservatives claim, but they are essentially talking about completely different spheres of life usually. Only the libertarian tradition combines economic liberty and social and cultural liberty.
January 18, 2006 8:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Norquist and Barr are intellectuals and ideologues, and they actually have political goals.
Norquist is a hack whose sole mission in life is dismantling government. Sorry, but I don't think that rises above the bar set for words like "intellect" or philosophy or anything implying thought.
He's a fraud, a hack, and an amoral con artist.
His backing comes from Big Business and lobbyests. Period. He has backed things like the privitization of SS, which was a complete astroturf movement funded by Big Insurance, Big Pharma, and anyone with a profit to be gouged.
His ideology comes straight out of the mouths of think tankers funded by Big Business. He's never an advocate for liberty or freedom or other ideas when it doen't benefit a Big Business.
Norquist is the K-Street enforcer, it's his baby. The definition of K-Street is strong arm corruption in the Federal governemnt, which shows what a hack he really is.
January 18, 2006 8:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Only the libertarian tradition combines economic liberty and social and cultural liberty.
It's called anarchy, which is the perfect environment for plutocracy to emerge.
Libertarianism is a lot of romantic slogans and not much else. That is the reason there are no serious Libertarian intellectuals and a lot of Big Money hacks.
There are plenty of rank and file Libertarians who sincerely believe a Wild West sort of freedom is possible. Survivalists and weekend warriors for example are big on Libertarianism. I'm sure many start out thinking it's a great idea, and what's not to like in the idea we could all be more free and society almost totally streamlined and bureaucracy free? Sure, sounds great.
But as they rise to prominence these people ultimately need money and backing, and that comes from somebody with their feet on the ground, wealth, and with an axe to grind against government.
That's why Libertarians always wind up as stooges for Big Business, which ultimately co-opt their message. That’s why Libertarians always regurgitate this laissez-faire free market dogma, with it’s invisible hand mumbo jumbo, which comes straight out of the Big Business think tanks and board rooms who passionately hate any limits on their power.
The definition of a prominant Libertarian is a connected Big Business puppet.
January 18, 2006 8:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Please welcome guest blogger Charles Johnson.
January 18, 2006 8:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, we'll see how long Norquist's principled stand against presidential lawbreaking lasts now that his brother is the CFO for DHS.
January 18, 2006 9:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
You have a point, but I think you'll find that most generation x (the spawn of the 60s and 70s) and maybe generation y Democrats are left-libertarians who support Second Amendment rights,civil liberties, open markets, free trade, fiscal responsibility, abortion rights and gay rights (including gay marriage), federalism, non-interventionism, political and constitutional reform, and results-based (as opposed to faith-based) policymaking.
I don't for a minute trust Nohrquist, but as the GOP becomes the party of big government conservatism it seems reasonable that some libertarians and perhaps even paleo-cons could support the party of limited government liberalism.
The Democrats are returning to their roots as the party of Jefferson.
January 18, 2006 9:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
some libertarians ... could support the party of limited government liberalism.
If you;re talking about direct appeals to real Libertarians rank and file, then sure.
But there is no such thing as a real Libertarian leader. In the real world, every major Libertarian leader is a Republican in drag, and a Big Business lackey to boot.
Who funds the Libertarian movement? Writes the ideology? Pays the campaign contributions? Writes the lobbying and legislation? Big Business does.
Show me a prominent Liberta