I don't think that there's any mystery to the 'implosion' of movement conservatism.

Small government conservatives have always been a misunderstood creature. They've always been in favour of government, lots of government, in order to keep the blacks down, keep unions, down, keep gays off the streets, women in their places, etc. Their agenda was frequently morally reprehensible. In order to deal with that contradiction, movement conservatives espoused a series of high minded but largely abstract principles which would inevitably license their fond wishes. Ergo, instead of defending Lynching, they defended States Rights.

Their loyalty to their articulated principles has always been more or less indifferent. Their loyalty to their underlying values has always been rock solid.

In this sense, I see no break between Goldwater/Nixon/Ford/Reagan and Bush II.

The so called 'implosion' has much less dramatic, and not very philosophical roots. These roots are: Failure.

Having come near to implementing their entire agenda, and successfully implementing many core ideas in foreign and domestic policy, movement conservatives are faced with escalating disasters on every front.

The movement is torn between those who are true believers, who believe that if you just pray a little harder, clap a little louder, fairies will be real... those who have actually made out like bandits through corruption and wealth transfer... and those who see it all falling down and are scrambling for someone else to take the blame.

One thing I'll guarantee is that no conservatives will actually take responsibility for the messes they've made.

The “get the government off our backs” conservative ideology grew from the libertarians and that sort of Goldwater American individualism and isolationism. It was about the individual not the elite corporate interests.
All of Bush’s domestic programs designed to reduce or cripple government from tax cuts to defanging regulators to social security have been about benefiting big business and consolidating power in the elite.
If the Bush regime is about anything, it is about amassing greater power. They have curtailed individual rights more than any modern administration. The government is bigger than ever and has climbed on the backs of its citizen more than ever. Their m.o. is expand the powers of big business and big government.

On March 29, 2007 - 5:30pm Mgmax said: The saddest words in the English language:

"I’m a huge fan of Glenn Greenwald."

Usually, of course, they come from Glenn Greenwald....

Mgmax, if you have a case to make against Greenwald, please make it.

The mistake is using the terminology of the wealthy when discussing the role of government. "Smaller government" is a misleading construct.

There are two basic roles for government. The first is to provide communal services like the military and national civil engineering projects. The second is to administer national programs on behalf of the people. In this function (which includes Social Security, Medicare and similar programs) the government acts as a collection and disbursing agent for an insurance program. The role is strictly clerical. The monies collected are dedicated to the program and these same funds are allocated by formula to those who qualify.

By conflating these two roles together the wealthy can discuss smaller government when what they really mean is defunding social insurance. Several decades of behind the scenes work funding libertarian think tanks and similar efforts have allowed them to build up a following of non-wealthy people who do their bidding because of ideological ideas which are actually harmful to the acolytes.

Since the wealthy can buy all the services they need (private schooling, private health care, retirement based upon wealth and even, when necessary, private police) they see no reason for their taxes to be used to fund services they don't need.

Smaller government means eliminating publicly funded insurance, nothing more and nothing less. In all other areas these people believe in autocracy or plutocracy. This means more control over people's lives, not less. Hence the opposition to any activity which gives people collective power like unions.

The recent connection with the religious right has meant that in addition to economic and political control (as was popular during the days of unionization like the Palmer Raids) we now see efforts to control people's personal behavior. This includes all the usual areas: sex, education, religious observance and cultural conformity.

So let's stop talking about "smaller government" and call it defunding social insurance.

--- Policies not Politics
Daily Landscape

On March 29, 2007 - 6:29pm rdf said:

Since the wealthy can buy all the services they need (private schooling, private health care, retirement based upon wealth and even, when necessary, private police) they see no reason for their taxes to be used to fund services they don't need.

Smaller government means eliminating publicly funded insurance, nothing more and nothing less.

To certain of the wealthy among us, the National Motto, "E Pluribus Unum" has warped into "Every Man for Himself" and their Holy Grail is 'Unbridled Capitalism'.

Sadly, they have been able to manipulate the masses into building the gallows these Bush type cretins will use to hang them.

rdf, You summed it up nicely, excellent post.

"The thing that neither movement Conservatives or movement leftists don't grasp is the non-ideological nature of Americans. Pragmatism trumps the sound and fury of any committed partisan."

Seems a little silly. I think people in all countries tend to be pragmatic and apolitical to the extent possible. But this is not constant, and has an ebb and flow. Now with our country in deep crisis: politically for sure; I belive economically as well, I believe the center is not holding and the polarization we have seen is the order of the day. If so,it carries significant consequences. If Cato did oppose Bush or does oppose Bush in a serious way then the Bush group has certainly not attacked them directly. Strange.

You're right about CATO, Daniel. But don't forget that they were active in a big way in promoting Social Security privatization, and they and their libertarian affiliates have been intimately involved in the effort to emasculate regulations. Susan Dudley, the administration's nominee to take over OIRA from John Graham, is a libertarian with deep connections to that network.

Libertarianism isn't a governing philosophy, so people who adhere to it kind of bask in their independence from the political fray when their "principles" differ from what the Republicans are pushing (in contrast to, say, the Heritage types.) But when they see an opening for one of their pet causes to gain political traction, as with SS privatization, they are all in -- throwing bullshit the likes of which no one else can throw. --Greg

I'm afraid Greg's preaching to the choir, here.

But we shouldn't allow our discussion to gloss over the differences between a power-hungry, very political, very partisan in an ante-bellum politics sense of the word Republican Party with the doctrine/theory of conservatism.

When it comes to supporting personal freedom and civil rights, conservatives are closer to many of us on the left than is the Democratic Party (National Homeland Security Agency, anyone?).

Conservatism's greatest strength has always been the ease with which it boiled its philosophy down to a couple of basic ideas that only a small minority of Americans would disagree with in principle.  Small government.  Strong defense.  Moral values.  Simple, easy to understand, hard to object to.  Liberalism's response has always been some variation of, "Yes, but..." as in, "Sure we're for strong defense.  But we also believe in multilateral institutions like the UN."  Liberals were always on the defensive and the ideological wars of the last 25 years have been fought on the right's terms.

What's happening now is that these principles have been undermined by policies put into place by a conservative government.  Cries of "small government" are hard to reconcile with an expansion of government.  The principle of strong defense has been fatally undermined by an ill-conceived, ineptly executed war.  Democrats are now far more trusted on defense issues for the first time in decades.  And moral values is now code for intolerance and government intrusiveness into peoples' private lives.  Now it's conservatives that are put into the position of "Yes, but...." as they try to explain away policies that are demonstrably at odds with their supposed principles.

I know this is a sore subject for many, but I agree with those who say that it isn't enough to just watch the right implode.  I would like to hear more statements of principle from liberals that amounts to more than policy positions on specific issues.  To put it in marketing terms, what's the tag line for liberalism these days?  If conservatives supposedly stand for small government, strong defense and moral values, what do liberals stand for?

My nomination: fairness, equality,  

A third would be "common good".

I find it surprising that you seem to be caught up within the swirling deceits that is encompassed in underneath the Big Circus Tent of Republican Inclusiveness. To not be able to differentiate Goldwater from Reagan seems to be very common on either side of the Political biPolarity, and furthers my belief that there is propriety in working towards the annihilation of the two party system.

I don't have immediate answers to all of your queries regarding Goldwater, but I do have a couple. First, Goldwater, when confronted with the issue of homosexuality in the form of a grandson being gay, responded by becoming a member of a gay rights organisation and continued being a vocal supporter of it for the rest of his life. He articulated his belief that to penalise any person on the basis of their sexual orientation was antithetical to true conservatism, and antilibertarian at its core.

"You don't have to be straight to be in the military; you just have to be able to shoot straight." -- Barry Goldwater

Goldwater's opposition to civil rights legislation, and Johnson's Great Society entitlements needs background data added before it is parsed for meaning. Goldwater's family department stores in Arizona was the first retailer in the state to have black employees as clerks, and the employee benefits package was considered to be unsurpassed. His opposition to welfare benefits was originally based upon an argument which was then considered radical, but has now gained mainstream acceptability. It was that welfare entitlements, although based upon good desires, would not result in a more equal society, and instead would create an underclass of dependents locked into a destiny of failure. His opposition to civil rights legislation came only at the point that it legislated private acts of citizens, and his justification for that was one; it was an unconstitutional overreach by the government, and two; attempts by the government to compel an equality of race by coercing private acts was an exercise in futility, bound to fail.

Goldwater was an early opponent of the right-sided theoCon jacking of conservatism, and I published an excerpt of Goldwater on the Senate floor, forcibly speaking of this in 1981 during the confirmation hearings of Sandra Day O'Connor very recently in my blog. Goldwater continued speaking out against the religious right's rise to power within the GOP:

"When you say 'radical right' today, I think of these moneymaking ventures by fellows like Pat Robertson and others who are trying to take the Republican Party away from the Republican Party, and make a religious organization out of it. If that ever happens, kiss politics goodbye." - - Barry Goldwater

Don't misunderstand what I am saying, I am not attempting to sway beliefs, and have personal objections to some of Goldwater's philosophy. I am speaking out against this defamation of character implied by fictional associations that both flip-sided of the realm's wicked coin, the linear polity, are far too willing to heap upon a dead man's honour. Goldwater was a man, who would stand by his words and defend them with a clearly stated ideology that did not bend to the winds of public perception, and was a man who would, upon deciding his past acts were not correct, openly admit to to his error and accept responsibility. These are qualities that contemporary conservatives lack, but I cannot find them within members of the Political BiPolarity's other-side either. Ronald Reagan did not possess the intellectual capacity to shoulder the burden of responsibility for the past, and his asleep at the wheel presidency, with its unsupervised and delegated creators of policies, was where many of the present day former Trotskyite BuShilling prevaricators were credentialed with their card carrying conservative bona fides, and also where they forged alliances with hard core right activists, who should never be mistaken for conservatives, as conservatism and right-wing activism are exclusive terms.

"I believe Reagan did know of the diversion of Iranian funds to the Contras. He had to know. The White House explanation makes him out to be either a liar or incompetent." - - Barry Goldwater

"Come one, come all, and taste the magical fixative imperialist elixir", pitch the NeoConnivers to the rubes as they sell their rotgut snake oil in shiny new Son of Bush Bottles, out on the midway that fronts the Big Circus Tent of GOP Inclusiveness, yet no one seems aware of the transparency: the Republcian Party has become the Party of Nothing For Everyone.

What would Barry do in the face of the current tyranny, which has now reached even unto the theft of habeas corpus?

"Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice.
Tolerance in the face of tyranny is no virtue."

[. . .]

"Now those who seek absolute power, even though they seek it to do what they regard as good, are simply demanding the right to enforce their own version of heaven on earth, and let me remind you they are the very ones who always create the most hellish tyranny."

- - Barry Goldwater, 1964 GOP presidential nomination acceptance speech

I think Glenn missed an aspect. He referred to an expansion of Federal power, but it is clear that what has occurred is an expansion of Executive power.

That is, movement conservatives are, in the end proto-authoritarians, something Glenn understands well but that is missed in this particular essay.

It isn't an expansion of Federal power per se, it is an expansion of Executive power that we are seeing, and this accords perfectly with the sheep-like behavior of movement conservatives.

Yes, exactly... I've been saying for some time now that the 'small' vs. 'large' government debate is pointless, and in fact we should refuse to engage in it. The difference between liberalism and conservatism-- well, other than the degree of acquaintance with reality these days-- is in what each side expects government to actually do, or even more particularly, exactly who should be better served by government policies. Both sides accept the costs of their philosophies willingly: conservatives have never seemed to mind inequality and and general injustice (after all, strong law enforcement should keep the worst of the rabble under control), especially as negative incentives; liberals usually can deal with [theoretically] higher costs and the fact that a fair percentage of people benefiting will be widely considered irresponsible, in the name of greater overall stability.

I think you might be polishing Barry's reputation a little more than it deserves, though you're right he didn't end up a fan of modern right-wing politics.
My take on Goldwater was that he was a bit of a light weight who never pretended to be an intellectual and wasn't particularly ambitious. He never had much interest in becoming a leader; in a sense he was a flag that Movement Republicans grabbed and waved to gather the troops together. Goldwater was content to be waved, but he didn't crave the Oval Office in the way his backers (or Lyndon Johnson, for that matter) did in 1964.
One thing I'll say for him, Goldwater wasn't driven by the malicious resentment that fueled much of the right in the 1960s, and still does today for that matter. Interestingly, the same can be said for Reagan, another person who was more seized upon by his close supporters than someone who seized the moment.

Communitarian values. I think both Edwards and Obama are trying, in different ways, to articulate this message. Edwards with his populist rifts on Two Americas and his anti-poverty, pro-union work over the past couple of years. Obama with his efforts to reach out to the religious community and resurrect the idea of a social gospel and a message that "we are all in this together."

The Democratic party has a hell of a long ways to go to match the bumper sticker clarity of the the Republicans. The Big Tent structure of the Dems has meant a need to accomodate a wide range of interest groups and viewpoint. In order to avoid alienating competing groups Dems have muddled their message. Both Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton, along with the muddled Dem Congressional majorities they had to work with, embraced a sort of kinder, gentler, Republican-Lite philosophy.

The last time liberals had effective control of government, in the mid sixties, the Dem coalition blew up over the Vietnam war and the civil rights movement. I think the abject failure of the Repubs is going to give the Dems another chance to forge a working majority. How we use that power will determine how long we will have it.

Good point about the essential selfishness of the right-wing movement, though I'd be careful about lumping everything together in simple class terms. One of the interesting things about US politics is how divided and hostile the elites are. For example, Bush, Gingrich, DeLay, Kennedy and Kerry are all wealthy men, but there's a big difference in their politics and what they want to see happen here.

One of Liberalism's better qualities: a tendency to engage in policy, only after it has been analysed in the classic process of hand-wringing self-doubt to assure its propriety, is the very same trait that is often used in effective attacks by the right-sided creatures who emerged from the Sugarland Bayous.

In the world of short-attention span electorate and Sound-byte broadcast news, Liberals are always at risk from Pavlovian behaviour modification triggered salivating attacks.  It is too easy to be punked politically. This is how a 40 minute explanation for a vote by Sen. Kerry was turned into 'flip-flopper' and used as a weapon against him.

I want to make one of my points again. The "conservative" libertarian movement (that is the one that favors strong support for private property and low taxes) is a product of a very small group of extremely wealthy families. This group stays out of the news and many of them aren't even familiar names. Since their influence is below the radar and seems to unlikely to be effective most people don't realize their power.

There have been several discussions about this in recent times, Krugman did a column recently and the SourceWatch group has a searchable database of funders of think tanks.

For example here is their info on CATO:

Between 1985 and 2001, the Institute received $15,633,540 in 108 separate grants from only nine different foundations:

* Castle Rock Foundation
* Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation
* Earhart Foundation
* JM Foundation
* John M. Olin Foundation, Inc.
* Claude R. Lambe Charitable Foundation
* Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation
* Scaife Foundations (Sarah Mellon Scaife, Carthage)

The reason I repeat this is to show that the political outlook of the country is not as libertarian as is believed, but a self-interested group with lots of money and the ear of the media has warped public perception.

This means that if their actions were exposed more consistently the task of waking up the public to what has really been going on would be more manageable. Just like Hearst whipped up fervor for the Spanish American War, Olin, Bradley, Scaife and others have whipped up support for plutocracy.

--- Policies not Politics
Daily Landscape

Having known many decent small-government conservatives, I'm afraid you're guilty of over-generalization. That's not to say that there aren't plenty of small-government conservatives that fit your caricature. However, it behooves us all to be aware that many small-government conservatives (although a minority) are actually socially liberal.

Alienating these people by painting them with a broad brush is not helpful.

Never put people who hate government in charge of government. It makes as much sense as putting Bin Laden in charge of the US Army.

Quick follow-up then, but I do not desire to hijack this thread.  I believe I can provide a few live links on the net, I will message you, if I am able to recall where i placed them.  At least I am almost certain they reside on my currently used hard drive.

Goldwater's stand on gay rights did occur after he found out about his gradson's orientation, but I believe anecdotes by his daughter and grandson's mother was that his first reaction was that there was no doubt that there was nothing inherently evil, as he knew and believed in his grandson.  This was in the early nineties, and I never recall ever having heard anything from Goldwater prior to this regarding homosexuality, which because of his age and generation, is just as easily explained as being an unimportant matter in his mind rather than a phase shift in belief because of a family tie.  At the same time consider Gingrich's sister, and Cheney's daughter, then tell me how their public stands on homosexuality have been.

In regards to his civil rights beliefs; as i said I don't agree with some of Golwater's philosophy, and this would be a place of contention, because  the societal pervasiveness of racism required and still requires extraordinary countermeasures.  This matter is not finished in America's society, and partially because of governmental coercion  now is found in the darkness of back alley transactions far away from the freemarket of ideas.  I get around on the net to very strange places, and can state for a fact, Beauregard, Topaz, the self-styled Southern Patriots and their ilk still exist in many places, pitching their filth. And there is still an arguable difference between a public restaurant and an always private member country club; there is a strongly accepted application of the commerce clause's reach that easily could include any housing development that had ever received any federal backing too.  Goldwater probably would have opposed these also, but the intent should be considered in this case.

Also in response to yours and another's claim that Goldwater was an impotent force, completely disregards the Senate's seniority system. There is a current ancient Senator, who has also acted in the past in ways that I've heartily disapproved of, yet I will probably end up defending his honour after death, for his more recent Senatorial speeches which I believe has atoned him for his reprehensible past, Robert Byrd.  He will also be judged impotent in his strident opposition to The Tyranny of Bush, yet he was still one who has stood when it mattered, while many other Senior Senate Statesmen from both parties either acquiesced quietly or actively engaged in its support. When the darkness is falling, even if resistance is a futile act, the superior will stand and spit into its very eyes.  Thus speaks honour to duty, and presents to the world, the rectitude of intent.  The rights of Humans still matter to some Americans; wish us well friend.

I attended a forum on social security privatization with Michael Tanner of Cato, Paul Krugman moderated by Josh Marshall. Tanner made it clear he was for doing away with Social Security all together for ideological reasons. He had no answer for many of Krugman's points. Often he has to resort to a number of dishonest arguments.

Cato also would like to see an end to the U.N. as well as most U.S. foreign activities. They are not a group I agree with often.

I just pointed to them to show that rigid political demarcations, at least in the U.S., don't work well.

Americans want a government that is helpful but not overbearing. There is no desire for huge unergulated programs, but laissez-faire is not supported either. Depending who has been running the country and for how long this mix of ideologies can work for or against the incumbent party.

Daniel A. Greenbaum

On March 30, 2007 - 10:39am hcberkowitz said:

Whenever I see posts suggesting all Republicans should be suppressed, criminalized, etc., I cringe. There are centrist and libertarian Republicans that may well move to a new coalition that considers individual rights more important than a security state.

Howard, I consider myself a liberal, and as such I've always seen Republicans as a needed balancing force, a force that would keep people like me from going too far left if we got control. The only thing I feared from Republicans is when they get 'too much' control, as in the first 6 years under Bush

As to Libertarians, I found myself agreeing with them over the years on certain issues.

Note: When I refer to "Republicans" I don't mean Bush/Cheney/Tom DeLay/Santorum type Republicans. I mean people like Richard Luger, Gordon Smith, Lamar Alexander, Susan Collins, and maybe even Trent Lott, etc.

Today's conservative policies work out to be socialism for the rich - courtesy of their bought government - while the rest of us poor slobs must learn to "profit" from free enterprise.

Thanks for the Cato-Unbound heads-up.

If liberty is the absence (minimization) of external restraints, then, certainly limiting the immense (and growing?) police powers of the state is an important goal. But --

What do conservatives say about the "soft" restraints imposed by language, the medium that Heidegger said we're thrown into at birth. Does seeking liberty require us to struggle against custom, tradition, and the common wisdom? Against family and community, the bastions of these accepted values, as well as against the state?

Conservatives are not known as proponents of post-modern critiques.

*  Is it not the case that both our political parties and the vast majority of the country would stand with Socrates' prosecutors and not with Socrates? 

You're simply incapable of commenting without a gratiutous slap at "leftists," are you Daniel? No matter that it's only in your imagination that these amorphous leftists are causing equal damage to our society as the conservatives who actually wield power.

On March 30, 2007 - 3:24pm sphealey said: === mean people like Richard Luger, Gordon Smith, Lamar Alexander, Susan Collins, ===

How do you rate that group's performance in providing firm, fair, grown-up Constitutional oversight of the Bush/Cheney Presidential Administration?

In a word, horrid, but it doesn't take away from my post.

On March 30, 2007 - 1:34pm DanielGree said:

I attended a forum on social security privatization with Michael Tanner of Cato, Paul Krugman moderated by Josh Marshall. Tanner made it clear he was for doing away with Social Security all together for ideological reasons..

If I'm not mistaken, the idea of privatizing Social Security origninated at the Cato Inst.

I sympathize with your general point of view, but I know a small-goverment conservative, really a libertarian, who believes in legalizing all drugs. She is openly gay, and she has adopted a daughter. I worked for her for years. Unusual? I guess so, but generalizations do have exceptions.

I would be cautious with your rotten apple theory. In this case, I think almost all of the apples in the conservative barrel are rotten, but your rotten apple theory could be used to justify simple bigotry.

complete disregard for historical experience

Another way to say this is that conservativism is an anti-empiricism movement. Conservatives of all the different varieties have in common a desire to be carried along by attractive narratives that is so strong that they choose to rage against measurable experience rather than modify their behavior.

I really needed that image of a naked Dick Cheney.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]

Howard, how could you use those words..... Now I need an acid wash for my eyes.

When the first of my two books with Macmillan came out, I hadn't seen the cover art, which featured a bridge. Thinking of the classical "I have a bridge I'd like to sell you", I inquired if the next book might feature the Takoma Narrows Bridge.
--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]

On March 30, 2007 - 2:59pm Valdron said:

I've always thought that Libertarians should take some comfort from the way that their ideas have been applied in real life. When you take a look at places like Somalia, Afghanistan and the Congo, we see the application of Libertarian principles in their purest form.

Agreed.

While reading the post which itemized the Foundation support the Cato receives it occurred to me that the form of government we might be living under if these Foundations had their way can be seen best by looking at China. Not so much the "Communist" stigma, but the full control over the people the Chinese government has, Authoritarian.

I know a small-goverment conservative, really a libertarian, who believes in legalizing all drugs. She is openly gay, and she has adopted a daughter.

I don't see how she could get much more liberal. :-)

"Small-government conservative" is an oxymoron. Takes a heap of government to hold back change and protect privilege.

Libertarians on the other hand are a breed of anarchist that is hardly rightwing.

The liberal who wants minimum government is what he or she has always been.

Best, Terry

On March 31, 2007 - 10:01am terry hallinan0 said:

What you need Republicans for when you have Democrats like the Clintons to protect privilege?

Agreed, but given a choice I'll take the DLC Dems. (as I hold my nose)

I have observed regional variations in describing the festivities between 1861 and 1865. With tongue slightly in cheek,

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]

Never put people who hate government in charge of government. It makes as much sense as putting Bin Laden in charge of the US Army.

If you don't fear the threat of government power and control, you are a conservative, not a liberal.

Libertarians preach a bizarre kind of anarchism that is not really all that much against government but rather against government providing for the common welfare. Their ideal government would seem to be the sort that existed in Somalia - not to the liking of many I think.

Liberals want the government to do for the people, not to the people.

Best, Terry

I think demonizing 'the government' is a flawed concept to begin with, as it ignores the fact that We, The People, are in fact part of 'the government', that is, when we feel motivated to participate. It's kind of an interactive thing, where you have to speak out on given issues, which requires some of that 'reading' stuff, and some type of 'education', basically when you have 'conservative' government, you sort of have government by blind faith, based on the assumption that in the absence of people studying what goes on that everything will work out. Well, that's proven not to be the case in more than one recent instance, and will continue to be the case as long as there's some redneck right-winger(s) out there broadcasting their ignorance in the face of reason, but at the end of the day, the truth kind of wins out through mass public exposure. Also, you can't really say 'conservative' without saying 'racketeering', because there's been plenty of that, and possibly that could help explain the general aversion to 'government', as
with functional government, a lot of dirt gets uncovered that they'd likely want to keep out of public view, and with good reason, as when you start digging up stuff, the figurative skeletons in the closet etc., people typically end up either losing money, or in jail etc. This would be 'bad', but still, at the end of the day, the truth comes out, and much more likely to happen these days in the Digital Age.

If you want 'small government', then don't support tax increases, DO attend your city council meetings, and try like hell to become an informed voter whenever possible. Civic participation may sound like liberal do-gooderism, but it also provides the much-needed public oversight to help and forestall runaway spending and other problems that've historically plagued 'the government' over the years. When the voters are away, the bureaucrats will play, so to speak, and some people never met a spending bill they didn't like, so for TRUE conservatives to take issue with problems requires them again to read and be well-informed, and ask of their state and national representatives to take a critical view of every plug nickel spent. A TRUE conservative will find a way to do a job less expensively, more economically, more efficiently, rather than grouse about what needs to be done. A 'lipstick' conservative will rake in the cash while berating the ethical lapses that led to him/her recieiving it to begin with.

Our country is some 9 trillion 'in the red', meaning that there's about 9 trillion in promissory red ink in the form of treasury notes that've been pre-burdened against future tax reciepts. I think it'd be pretty revealing to do an honest survey(figure the odds on THAT happening, but anyway) among so-called 'conservatives' to find out how much interest-bearing t-bill scrip they hold. If they've got a suitcase-full, to my view that's inconsistent with the conservatism rhetoric, because it means they're OK with people being taxed, just as long as THEY don't bear the burden of it personally, or recieve enough tax revenue through such interest payments that they end up with a net profit from it all or at least break even when it's all said and done.

We hear a lot of B.S., you've got 'the poor', you've got 'the homeless', you've got 'the left', 'the right', liberals and conservatives, and 'the government', readily available and demonizable labels and monikers at your rhetorical beck and call, there. People like (D)ann Coulter make frequent and indiscriminate use of them, issuing forth torrents of unmitigated hostility in their neverending screeds, but without really saying a whole lot of anything that could honestly be considered to be worth reading, at the end of the day.

In short, ranting accomplishes little, and 'the government' is just another mis-named rhetorical fabrication, a figurative rally-point for people's hostility, a whipping-post for people's frustrations, but, turns out, it's like Pogo said: "We have met the enemy, and he is us!"

You asked of League of the South, I was not very familiar with the specific organisation, so I used google. Here are a few of note.

• Southern Poverty Law Center - League of the South
• David Beito and Charles Nuckolls, "Wrong Song of the South - The dangerous fallacies of Confederate multiculturalism", Reason, July 19, 2004
• Look Away, Tancredo - Right Wing Watch, September 13, 2006
• "On the pages of Wesley Pruden's Washington Times, the South rises again", Media Matters for America, June 30, 2005

From a quick analysis of these and other links to LOS and related sites, they strike me as a racist group with a warm and fuzzy exterior, and are well versed in dialectics as well as other forms of semantic obfuscation; using the slur Nazi against black groups, claiming that a racist is what a Liberal/Libertarian/Neoconservative calls someone they are losing an argument to, supporting a petition ths calls for Reparations for Southerners.

I also sense a good understanding of how to manipulate Google specifically, and all search engines in general, with multiple chapters of LOS hosted on multiple servers from varying IP addresses. Search engine robots tend to view these sites as wholly independent, so any web search algorithms based on number of inbound links gets jacked a bit from it. Just the number of cross-referencing sites, each with a bit different gets the other major search engines boosting results too.

The better of their writers who can articulate positions without hard attacks based upon race have found themselves accepted on some paleocon sites, while some of the less offensive from hardcore white supremacy orgs get published on LOS sites. If you chase links a bit, you could easily move from Lew Rockwell to Vanguard without realising what was going on. An old sarcastic reference of mine referring to groups such as this before the pervasiveness of the internet was "White and Polite", and yes that was always served with a wink and a nudge, or if I was feeling real mean, instead served up with a Moonpie and RC Cola.

"Libertarian principles in their purest form"

The comparison that strikes home to me is that Libertarian principles would take us back to "Bloody Harlan," the violent suppression of coal-mining union organizers in Harlan County, KY.

Re: Our country is some 9 trillion 'in the red', meaning that there's about 9 trillion in promissory red ink in the form of treasury notes that've been pre-burdened against future tax reciepts.

I don't know that that's a valid way to calculate debt. Only loans already taken out should count. Just because I will almost certainly (barring premature death) buy and finance several new cars in future years of my life, not to mention having all sorts of future liabilities for rent (or house payments) utilities, groceries, etc, etc. I don't think you would say I owe all that money now, and no interest accrues on it, unless and until I use a credit card instead of then-current revenues to pay for any of it. Why borrow trouble from the future when the present has plenty enough to fret over?

I stand corrected.