CPAC: Is the ‘C-Word’ the Problem?
When, over a decade ago now, I first veered away from the liberal-progressive orthodoxy, I lived in dread (okay, that’s too strong a word — maybe trepidation) that I would be branded a “conservative.”
Who wanted to be that? I was a bona fide Child of the Sixties — a rebel as in The Crystals’ “He’s a Rebel.” (“He’s a rebel and he’ll never ever be any good/He’s a rebel ‘cause he never does what he should.”)
To be a conservative was to be square. Never mind liberals were even squarer in their own paleo-sclerotic traditionalism. (Have you ever met people more lockstep than liberals?) Conservatives were the squares of squares — the uptight white guys with bowties who forever passed the joint without trying it. That certainly wasn’t me.
But sure enough, shortly after I started blogging in 2003, I was branded with the “c-word.” I didn’t know what to make of it and was, frankly, more than a little uncomfortable.
Not long after I was branded with the “l-word,” libertarian, and exhaled. Libertarians were the cool guys, conservatives who could pick up girls at parties, as some wags had it. Better to be that, even if I was a little overage for the parties.
This tendency continues perhaps ever more strongly with the new generation. Last month my ninth-grade daughter attended a conference for the Junior State of America. Almost none of the high school students, she told me, caucused with the Republicans. A throng went to the libertarians.
Still, I can’t totally identify as a libertarian, since I find some of their more extreme views silly. (Someone does have to pay for the interstate highway system. And Islamic jihadists are quite serious about a world caliphate. Declaring ourselves the purest of free marketers and rolling up the gangplank will not deter them in the slightest. In fact, it will only encourage them.)
All this is the long way around to saying that the problems creating the current dissension at CPAC stem in part from the word “conservative” itself. It seems mired in the past — even when it is not. As much as anything else, in an odd way, it’s a semantic difficulty.
Young people particularly (and even some older folks like myself) like to see themselves as oriented toward the future. Clinton was no fool when he chose “Don’t Stop Thinking About Tomorrow” as his theme song, corny as it may now seem. The truth is yesterday is gone.
Liberals, as we all know, rebranded themselves with some success as progressives — a word that was, ironically, itself once discredited. The wheel goes round on these things.







I just don't identify with those who can simultaneously claim to be for "limited government" and then support government aggression that grossly infringes on individual behavior that does not involve anyone but consenting adults.
I just don't identify with those who can simultaneously claim to be for "limited government" and then support government aggression that grossly infringes on individual behavior that does not involve anyone but consenting adults.
We need more discussion of this. For the last year I've watched lazy, imperious. Libertarians -- adolescent athiests, as a friend put it -- invade organizations and institutions built by serious, hard-working people and claim them as their own, then start dictating what can and can't be discussed in their precious biosphere of pot fantasies and irresponsibility. They're ethical squatters.
And the most rigid, authoritarian, conformist people I've ever met.
Let's puncture a few bubbles, shall we? Maybe CPAC needs to be for conservatives.
We need more discussion of this. For the last year I've watched lazy, imperious. Libertarians -- adolescent athiests, as a friend put it -- invade organizations and institutions built by serious, hard-working people and claim them as their own, then start dictating what can and can't be discussed in their precious biosphere of pot fantasies and irresponsibility. They're ethical squatters.
And the most rigid, authoritarian, conformist people I've ever met.
Let's puncture a few bubbles, shall we? Maybe CPAC needs to be for conservatives.
And... (show more)
And that's the vast majority of all bad behavior.
There are lots of lousy laws already on the books that strip us of our rights to control the "behavioral environment" on our own property. For example, to throw people out of your restaurant because you don't like their looks should be your right. These, too, are lousy laws that have the same horrible effect: giving government control it should not have.
Libertarianism - neither conservatism nor liberalism nor both combined - offers the answer to both sides of this issue. Alas, most people seem to prefer to leave such powers in the filthy hands of Nanny Gov. (show less)
Be that as it may, Im frequently denounced as a Theocrat by both Leftwingers and Libertarians, when nothing could be further from the truth.
Be that as it may, Im frequently denounced as a Theocrat by both Leftwingers and Libertarians, when nothing could be further from the truth.
Somebody has decided to use our information stream, our media, our arts and pop culture, to make a state-run propaganda machine so that we are not only never told the truth, we are repeatedly told a pack of lies, slanders and specious arguments in order to confuse the dim and apathetic. I'm against that. Vehemently.
Somebody is trying to "redistribute" accumulated wealth, "transform" the country, weaken the Constitution, by pitting Americans against each other in class warfare, ethnic warfare, religious warfare, gender warfare, and every other "suspect" class available. I'm against that. Vehemently.
I don't know what... (show more)
Somebody has decided to use our information stream, our media, our arts and pop culture, to make a state-run propaganda machine so that we are not only never told the truth, we are repeatedly told a pack of lies, slanders and specious arguments in order to confuse the dim and apathetic. I'm against that. Vehemently.
Somebody is trying to "redistribute" accumulated wealth, "transform" the country, weaken the Constitution, by pitting Americans against each other in class warfare, ethnic warfare, religious warfare, gender warfare, and every other "suspect" class available. I'm against that. Vehemently.
I don't know what you call that...but whatever you call it...fine. Give me a uniform and let me know who is on my team. I have a job to do.
All other issues are not germane to who is on my team to stop this treason. If they wear my uniform proudly, I will stand shoulder to shoulder with them. Because NOTHING is as important to me....as saving this land of ours from the ruin we now face.
Go ahead. Give my team a name. I don't care. Just don't tell me who you think can't be on it. (show less)
(taken, but apt)
(taken, but apt)
It is very obvious when you study it that the free market provides goods and services for considerably less money than do monopolies, all of which are dependent upon the... (show more)
It is very obvious when you study it that the free market provides goods and services for considerably less money than do monopolies, all of which are dependent upon the power of government to maintain their status. The professions are a good example of government enforced monopoly and the result of inflated prices for services because there is no free market in the services provided. My blog at "<a href="http://www.muskegonlibertarian.wordpress.com"/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">www.muskegonlibertarian.wordpress.com"</a>; goes into detail on this issue. Instead of the income tax, the payroll tax, and all the rest of the federal government's taxes, a simple transaction tax of a penny on a dollar for every financial transaction would bring in sufficient money to cover everything we want the federal government to actually do. Plus there would likely be sufficient surplus funds to partially if not completely fund the costs of state government, roads, and everything else. The transaction tax can be "automated" to the point that there would be very little paperwork, April 15th would be just another day for virtually everyone. Plus, a transaction tax offers the advantage of discouraging "speculation" and encourages long term investment instead. (show less)
This means actually believing in limited govt, something that no major Repub figure seems willing to do. Romney didn't, Noot didn't, Ricky from PA certainly didn't, Christie doesn't, and so on down the line. Paul does but the GOP establishment looks at libertarianism as the folks who just want to smoke pot and be Somalia-West, which... (show more)
This means actually believing in limited govt, something that no major Repub figure seems willing to do. Romney didn't, Noot didn't, Ricky from PA certainly didn't, Christie doesn't, and so on down the line. Paul does but the GOP establishment looks at libertarianism as the folks who just want to smoke pot and be Somalia-West, which is BS but no reason facts should cloud the narrative.
Conservative means cutting govt, to include the Pentagon, and cutting means spending less year to year, not reducing the rate of increase. Supporting limited govt means that I can believe something without expecting govt to force everyone else to believe it, too, and it means letting adults make adult decisions, whether I like them or whether the consequences may be negative. So long as no one right's are violated, I really don't want to be my brother's nanny or his conscience, and govt is ill-prepared for either role.
Limited govt means believing in liberty. It is no coincidence that the most prosperous nations are the ones with greatest economic liberty, and it should be no surprise that subsidizing bad behavior only leads to more of it. The federal govt's primary role is to safeguard individual rights, and that means letting consenting persons make their own life decisions free of govt policy that seeks to coerce them into specific outcomes. (show less)
'If it ain't broke, don't fix it.'; Human nature does not change,
and neither do the optimum ways to cope with its strengths
and weaknesses.
In the past, societies have suffered from an excess of success,
but never on the scale, and with the speed, of the unearned,
apparently unlimited rise in wealth which has corrupted our society;
That rise was caused by technological advance, and the only hope
of avoiding a fall is to continue the advance, by overcoming those
who want to 'conserve' their own wealth and power no matter the
cost to society, by opposing further advances: 'I've got mine, Jack.'
'If it ain't broke, don't fix it.'; Human nature does not change,
and neither do the optimum ways to cope with its strengths
and weaknesses.
In the past, societies have suffered from an excess of success,
but never on the scale, and with the speed, of the unearned,
apparently unlimited rise in wealth which has corrupted our society;
That rise was caused by technological advance, and the only hope
of avoiding a fall is to continue the advance, by overcoming those
who want to 'conserve' their own wealth and power no matter the
cost to society, by opposing further advances: 'I've got mine, Jack.'
Calvin Coolidge July 5, 1926, speaking on the 150th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence.
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
“About the Declaration there is a finality that is exceedingly restful. It is often asserted that the world has made a great deal of progress since 1776, that we have had new thoughts and new experiences which have given us a great advance over the people of that day, and that we may therefore very well discard their conclusions for something more modern. But that reasoning can not be applied to this great charter. If all men
are created equal, that is final. If they are endowed with inalienable rights, that is final. If governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, that is... (show more)
Calvin Coolidge July 5, 1926, speaking on the 150th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence.
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
“About the Declaration there is a finality that is exceedingly restful. It is often asserted that the world has made a great deal of progress since 1776, that we have had new thoughts and new experiences which have given us a great advance over the people of that day, and that we may therefore very well discard their conclusions for something more modern. But that reasoning can not be applied to this great charter. If all men
are created equal, that is final. If they are endowed with inalienable rights, that is final. If governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, that is final. No advance, no progress can be made beyond these propositions. If anyone wishes to deny their truth or their soundness, the only direction in which he can proceed historically is not forward, but backward toward the time when there was no equality,
no rights of the individual, no rule of the people. Those who wish to proceed in that direction can not lay claim to progress. They are reactionary. Their ideas are not more modern, but more ancient, than those of the Revolutionary fathers.” (show less)
I do, but I'm not happy with the scorched earth policy that is my only practical option in national politics.
By which I mean that in order to do so I must sign off on government interference in the freedoms and well being of many of my fellow citizens. Additionally the people on the "right" rarely want true capitalism, but, rather, a lighter dusting of corporatism than the other guys, which just sucks.
I do, but I'm not happy with the scorched earth policy that is my only practical option in national politics.
By which I mean that in order to do so I must sign off on government interference in the freedoms and well being of many of my fellow citizens. Additionally the people on the "right" rarely want true capitalism, but, rather, a lighter dusting of corporatism than the other guys, which just sucks.