While I have written many posts reminding readers of what I have said over the years, sometimes I need to remind myself of what I have said. More times than I can count (and long before the Tea Party movement’s inception) I have advocated an alliance between libertarians and social conservatives. Hell, FWIW I even repeatedly called for an alliance between atheists and Christians. Not that anyone cares about what a silly pragmatist small-l libertarian thinks, but I just wanted to be clear before I start ranting on Saturday at midnight.
For whatever reason, there is a “war” between libertarians and social conservatives. I say “war” because I am not entirely sure that both “sides” have truly consented to do battle. Sure, they disagree. SEVERELY. They always have. If I could imagine that I had a captive audience of only libertarians and social conservatives reading right now, I might say that “we” always have. But that is a misuse of the we that might rub too many of “us” the wrong way, so I do not dare.
I hate to sound like a Pollyanna-ish idealist, but I often wish that both sides could remember something.
What matters is not so much whether we disagree, but how much the disagreements matter. Especially at the federal level, and especially to those of us who are federalists. By “federalists” I mean those who believe in constitutionally limited government. If you think the Constitution limits the role of the federal government to the enumerated powers, then you are a federalist. And if you think the Bill of Rights — especially the Ninth and Tenth Amendments — actually mean what they say, then whether you are a libertarian or social conservative you are a kindred spirit, and I hope you will understand the point I am trying to make. There is no law and no system of morality of which I am aware that dictates we must like each other or agree with each other. We waste far too much time over likes and dislikes, over purely personal issues which have nothing — nada, zero — to do with the federal government. This is not to say that these personal issues are unimportant or that they do not matter. Of course they matter. But the tragedy is that they matter too much and matter not at all at the same time. At the federal level, they not only don’t matter, but they should not matter.
I cannot think of a better recent example than Reason‘s CPAC video. People who get all hot and bothered by the gay issue can wet their pants watching the antigay Republicans carry on about the homos.
OK, so let me admit that the anti-gay Republicans in the above video pissed me off. Not as much as the Occupy protesters, but still… I think they come across as smarmy bigots, and I think people like that are one of the reasons the GOP has a problem relating to young people. And I hasten to admit that they would probably have some similarly unflattering thoughts about me. Most likely, they would accuse me of being a bigot too: a moral/cultural relativist if not a “Cultural Marxist” dupe, and a twisted enabler of the fall of Judeo-Christian morality.
Excuse me, but if we assume a climate of mutual contempt, how is any of that a national, much less a federal issue? I think it’s pretty clear that such issues aren’t. They are little more than distractions from far more important issues that really are federal concerns.
But despite the fact culture issues rank low with the general voters, the “culture war” is what’s always said to be driving things.
That’s because distractions are more important than issues.
I’d say “end the culture war,” but I’d be repeating myself.
Comments
5 responses to “What should not matter is what matters the most!”
Eric –
I have one huge fish to fry tomorrow – it is almost 3am my time and I fly out to St. Loo in exactly 9 hours. I will posit one thing that really bothers us “too conservative for the conservatives libertarians,” and that is empire building and the perpetual war machine of whichever party. After more than a century of rank imperialism and war-making that makes the former British Empire look like amateurs, we are sick and damned tired of the whole war bullshit. Ron Paul captures our anger and intent perfectly, which is why both Dems and the GOP shit their pants at the idea of him gaining traction or credibility.
I, like Ron Paul, could care less what you wish to ingest, who you wish to live with, or any other matter that has to do with an individual living his or her OWN life. A social contract is meant to protect individual liberty, not gummint’s very much imagined right to tell anyone what to do, think, believe, ingest, or anything else.
I endure gummint, as I must later today whe I will tell the TSA agent the names of my testicles, right and left, so they are not confused while they are saving us in the GodBlessAmericaPleaseProtectUsFromTerroristsOhMyGodWe’reAllGonnaDie” silly-assed mindset that grips this nation.
We are a super-power? Buncha wimps, really . . .
jb,
Perhaps you have missed something. Powers of the first rank always have war machines. To fend off the jealousies of second to tenth rate powers.
And the first rate powers ALWAYS have to exercise their powers in order to avoid the “Paper Tiger” problem.
Sucks. But that is the way the world works.
It is not 1790 any more. And even then 10th rate powers couldn’t stay out of it. “War of 1812” ring a bell?
What do you do when you are living with a bunch of outlaw biker gangs? Not all of whom do rational calculations about costs. Fear. My man. And fear requires an Army/Navy. And the willingness to use it.
====
I’d be a lot more interested in an alliance with the general run of social conservatives if they generally stuck to limited government principles.
But they don’t. They have all sorts of moral programs that need help from the fasces of government.
The principle being: “if they will not be moral on their own, beat them with a stick”. Statist to the core.
Loved the opening of the video. “Wasteful behaviors” need to be eliminated. As if lives were simply a matter of thermodynamics.
I guess he hasn’t heard of the second law of thermodynamics.
I agree. As a libertarian, I have long ago come to terms with the so-coms since they have numbers and only want a few things that I find objectionable whereas the collectivists want everything.
The various factions of the right will always argue, our ideas don’t mesh together and the religious right is typically less willing to be pragmatic. This is not ideal, fiscal conservatives need to abate the power of government, and will not do so if never elected.
We must remember that ours is the side of individuals,who band together not as a collective, but in common interests, and what we truly stand against is a collectivist tyranny. Make no mistake, it is only a king believes that it’s subjects are effectively it’s property. The left has created a people’s king in socialism, controlled by the elite who obviously know what is best for us all.
The difference between the right and left is that we on the right know mankind is deeply flawed, they “know” that man is perfectible, and just as in heaven, the flawed should be cast into the pit. Obviously, those who do not see things their way are impediments to perfection and must be removed, in voice or in fact. The immense need to silence us over every imagined slight bares witness to it. Their immense “compassion” (with other people’s money) is often a siren’s song, even to our ears.
Socialism is an easy sell, those things that you need are free! To Christians it is also easy, as charity is among those things commanded by the religion. I don’t understand the buy-in, since it is impossible to be charitable with someone else’s money? Robbing one man to feed another is more a sin than anything… Anyway, Socialism is an easy sell, as those who are hungry will be fed, and naked clothed. To us “sinners” it is a chance to be virtuous, for free!
We do not want to see others suffer. We think men should be equal and free. With our own words, our own compassion, we are slowly twisted away from knowledge or reason, abandoning wisdom, until we find ourselves working toward their very goals. Their methods only create more of what they claim to desire to abate, poverty, suffering, laying the ultimate cost of it all on future generations until one day, with a crash, it all comes due.
Fact is our sword and our armor, where as the left has the notion that there are some things that are too important to leave to chance and facts alone. The idea that you can say any lie so long as it is the “truth” is not only Orwellian, but the left owns it. We must point out every falsehood, and tolerate none from our side.
Perhaps the factions of the right are the ranchers and the farmers.. the rifts in our viewpoints are indeed deep.. but the left has most of the claim jumpers, and thus must not be tolerated.
as for the military, if you don’t defend your rights, you won’t be allowed to keep them. That applies among men, and among the nations of men. It was in the first years of our nation that our ships were first hijacked and our men first held for ransom. “The shores of Tripoli” has that origin. It wasn’t until Jefferson and the first US Navy and Marines that this was largely stopped.
It is impossible not to trade globally in this age, and if you’re going to trade, you need enough force to protect that right. If you are strong enough to protect yourself, you will form alliances with weaker parties. If not a military, then every ship must have a gun, every plane must carry chafe. And if anything, one of the main lessons of the 20th century is that appeasement simply allows those who hate you to advance into a more fortuitous position.
It’s too late to build an army when they have gun emplacements above your cities. Thanks to the space age, anyone who can build a rocket has a gun pointed at the whole world, if he chooses. We no longer have the option not to have a strong military, and since a well trained soldier is far more valuable than the most modern of weaponry, it would be madness even if it were possible. It takes several years to make an army that isn’t essentially a meat shield.