-Caveat Lector- From http://www.lewrockwell.com/yates/yates29.html >>Embedded linques at site<<< }}>Begin The Right Has Won? (A Footnote on Jonah Goldberg) by Steven Yates Although I�ve followed the spat between National Review Online columnist Jonah Goldberg and several of my fellow LewRockwell.com columnists, I�d been a nonparticipant. Nevertheless, Goldberg has been one of the many writers whose material I would read and print if he was writing on a topic I found interesting � including the article that bashed LewRockwell.com by way of replying to David Dieteman, Myles Kantor and Gene Callahan. Goldberg attempted to produce a "conservative canon." But let�s face it: the list was flawed. While most of the books that were on Goldberg�s list belonged there, not listing Hayek�s major later works or anything by Mises was a blunder. Goldberg goofed in at least one major respect no one I know of has noticed: he omitted C.S. Lewis� The Abolition of Man, arguably one of the half-dozen most important books of the 20th century. I confess that in Goldberg�s rejoinder to Dieteman, Cantor, and Callahan (as well as this week�s installment) I sense resentment more than anything else � resentment that folks out here in the boonies and hinterlands (here boonies and hinterlands mean: everywhere in the country but inside-the-beltway) would take up their word processors and criticize the work of someone in the "in crowd." This would help explain the references to "cat-kicking" libertarians who "spew Diet Coke out of their noses," etc., in response to what I thought was Dieteman�s sensible and level-headed explanation of why Hayek is not a conservative. Goldberg is dismissive of the whole enterprise of LewRockwell.com. We�re unimportant; no one reads us; no one has heard of us; we�re idiots, he insinuates in his most recent rejoinder; etc., etc. If this is true, then why did he bother replying � and then reply a second time? Could it be that he just doesn�t want the competition? But none of this is why I took up my word processor here. The dispute led me to take another look at Goldberg�s recent columns, upon which I discovered another oddity that might shed some light on recent events. In a January column, Goldberg looked at an article in Lingua-Franca, a rather curious publication somewhere between The Chronicle of Higher Education and People (or was a few years ago; my subscription has since lapsed). Goldberg�s topic was a handful of folks who had allied themselves with the right, broadly conceived, and then, for whatever reason, lurched leftward. Examples: John Gray, David Brock (the latter being the author of The Real Anita Hill, still the definitive guide to the University of Oklahoma affirmative-action law professor whose infamous Coke can was instrumental in leftists� efforts to sabotage Clarence Thomas� Supreme Court nomination in 1991). While reading this article, I came across the following statement: "After decades of war, the Right (broadly defined) has won (even more broadly defined). Over the course of the battle, and even more so in its aftermath, hordes of Leftists have migrated across the intellectual borderlands to the right. Meanwhile, a few dyspeptic and opportunistic tag-alongs and second lieutenants decide to double-back the other way, figuring the decimated and demoralized troops on the Left will eagerly promote them and offer them some hope of victory in the future." Goldberg�s remark invoked some déjà vu of a different sort, memories of conversations about the right winning. Years ago I would listen to philosophy professors and various other intellectual-wannabes express fears of the coming take-over of what Hillary would later call the vast right-wing conspiracy. We were several years into the so-called Reagan Revolution, and according to this crowd, everything was moving right. I never took any of it seriously. Some of these rants were punctuated with references to offbeat sci-fi fantasies like The Handmaid�s Tale, perhaps the radical feminist�s ultimate nightmare but about as plausible as Lost in Space. (The latter at least used humor.) Goldberg is telling us that something like this has actually happened? What, exactly, does it mean to say, the Right ("broadly defined") has won ("broadly defined"). How broad are our definitions here? I speak as a writer who has observed and commented on the rise of political correctness since before it was called that. Some of the coffeehouse conversations just mentioned took place over 12 years ago. It was right around then that I began to marvel at how the beneficiaries of a multitude of political freebies expressed their gratitude by whining incessantly about how horrible they were treated. The system still wasn�t doing enough; their "gains" could all be stripped away in a flash. Then came the years of the disastrous Bush Sr. Administration that gave us the Civil Rights Act of 1991, the Americans With Disabilities Act and the Gulf War. The first two have been gold mines for leftists, lawyers and leftist lawyers. As for the third � even if one makes the (admittedly tall) assumption that we had any business in the Gulf in the first place, had this country fought World War II the way that war was fought, it would have ended with Hitler still in power. The Right has won? Where, precisely? College and university campuses, during the 12 years since my first observations, became places where conservative students dare not state their views in class, whether the topic was affirmative action, abortion, or tax cuts. They justifiably fear not mere ridicule by their classmates but possible disciplinary action. They are routinely thrown off student newspapers. Tenured professors noted for such views have had their careers mangled by trumped up charges of "sexual harassment." A guilty-if-charged environment had developed in academia by 1993. Evidence was usually not much required because, after all, evidence is one of those logocentric, white male constructs instrumental in discrimination against and domination of all of Western culture�s victims. Between the need by left-liberals to quash the rising criticism of affirmative action and with law schools and government bureaucracies having become hotbeds of radical left activism in their own right, political correctness quickly spread outward to the rest of society. It soon reached the point where restaurant chains such as Denny�s and large corporations such as Texaco were made into real victims of legal racial extortion. It is still going on. Right now, an independent restaurant owner and barbecue sauce entrepreneur here in South Carolina, Maurice Bessinger, about whom I have written previously, is struggling to keep his wholesale business afloat, having had his products banished from several large grocery chains. Left-liberals in the media and the National Association for the Advancement of Colored Politicians allege that certain tracts he sells in his restaurants are pro-slavery (they are not). During the middle of the last decade, moreover, a militant homosexual-"rights" movement came of age. AIDS had become the first politically protected disease in human history. Billions of taxpayer dollars had already been funneled into efforts to find a cure, while homosexual men proclaimed their "right" to have unprotected sex with as many partners as they wanted. Increasingly, they were demanding affirmative-action favors. In 1994 I penned an article for a Christian scholarly journal, the Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies, predicting that if the militant push for "gay rights" continued, the expanding penumbra of collective grievances was on collision course with the religious liberties of Christians. As many recent events have shown, I was right. I don�t take any special pleasure in this. I would rather have been wrong. Why this excursion into recent history? Isn�t all this stuff about political correctness now yesterday�s news? Of course it is, but it highlights those things that set the Goldbergs of the world of commentary apart from those of us out here in the boonies. They may have more readers than we do � though the click-throughs to LewRockwell.com from his articles indicate otherwise � and they certainly have better funding than we do (I doubt, for example, that Goldberg has to work at a day job to survive), but the National Review crowd clearly lives in an insulated and more-or-less closed universe. In this universe, the "good guys" won the Cold War and we can all celebrate the triumph of "capitalism." Free markets have triumphed! The economy is booming, and we�re all getting rich! In the neocon universe, obedience to political principles is of marginal importance at best and so libertarian "purism" simply isn�t needed. "In free societies," Goldberg lectures us making a truly peculiar reference, "we don�t have much use for Lenins." Or the freelance intellectuals who write for LewRockwell.com. But out here, outside the in-the-beltway universe, I am often minding my own business, encounter this or that government intrusion into my affairs and find myself asking questions like: Do I own my life, or do I belong to the Almighty State? It is harder each year to do anything without producing your Social(ist) Security Number, which has become a de facto National ID number. While others are reading this I will probably be spending time accounting for every penny I earned this year to the IRS. Do I own the fruits of my labors, or do they, too, belong to the Almighty State? It is true that if I don�t like my job I can quit and find another one. However, I cannot refuse to fill out the reams of IRS and Immigration and Naturalization paperwork and still expect to be hired. Who owns the hiring process � the employer or the Almighty State? Should I attempt to start my own business there is again a ream of government paperwork to fill out, a license to acquire (and pay for), regulations to adhere to. Would I own my own business, or would this, too, exist at the discretion of the Almighty State and its bureaucratic drones? Suppose I want to marry my girlfriend and the feeling turns out to be mutual. More licenses, more regulations, changes in how the two of us answer to the tax man, etc. Driving to pick her up for a date I pass a billboard reading Buckle Up! It�s the Law! While I recognize that wearing a seat belt is a smart, safe thing to do, I�d rather think I was doing it because it was my idea and choice, not that of the Nanny State, telling me how to conduct myself in my own car � for which, incidentally, I also pay an annual tax for the privilege of driving. Do you see the point of the question: in what sense is this a free society? Government is literally everywhere, always in our faces, always in our wallets, and always trying to expand its reach. Neocons either don�t notice or don�t mind. I believe my main quarrel with the neocons is that they accept the expanding Almighty State. The neocon universe is, of course, in very close proximity to the centers of power emanating from the Washington Empire. They may be former socialists, but there was one aspect of socialism they never abandoned: comfort with centralization. Thus they made peace with the welfare-warfare state, as has in-the-beltway conservatism generally. They might utter "two cheers for capitalism" but wouldn�t be caught dead criticizing the Federal Reserve system, for example, or suspecting that the income tax doesn�t have the legal standing we�re assured by the government it has, or criticizing the Social Security system or setting out to abolish the U.S. Department of Education. In the comfortable in-the-beltway setting, it is almost as if no one notices the increments by which the Almighty State has increased its reach. I should add that I am not advocating anarchism but limited government � government that stays within the boundaries assigned it by the Constitution. I can concede that as long as sin remains a factor in human behavior, some government will be necessary � and also specific limits on government, so that it deals only with certain sins in specific ways, while community ostracism and the marketplace itself deal with others. I mention this because the distinction between anarchism and limited government is literally lost on a lot of people smart enough to know better. So in sum, Goldberg�s only evidence that "the Right has won" seems to be that a number of intellectuals over the past 20 years or so ceased to be communists or socialists and became neocons. Traffic in this direction in the circles in which he moves has been somewhat larger than the flow in the other direction. To be sure, this movement has built up some intellectual firepower. But two points should be noted. (1) On the campuses are hundreds of fellow-travelers and footsoldiers going in the opposite direction. (2) With the Republican Party that nominated Bush Jr. sounding nothing like the Republican Party of 1992 or even 1996, it is unclear what, if anything, the conservatives Goldberg prefers are actually doing to advance the cause of liberty in this society? I raise this second question in light of the end of Goldberg�s latest rant against LewRockwell.com, where he tells us all: "The tendency of libertarians generally and the Rockwellites specifically, is to get so hung up on ideological hair-splitting and irrelevant and often lunatic sectarian squabbles that they let the world continue creeping in a direction they don�t like. Then, they have the unmitigated chutzpah to scream at conservatives and Republicans for not doing enough to stop the creep. This purist approach to politics is simply quite juvenile. Nobody cares in what direction you want the wagon to go if you won�t get out of it and help push." I assure him we didn�t just "let the world continue" in this direction. Many of us have been sounding warnings for years, as I�ve noted. It is true that libertarians often quarrel too much amongst themselves over details, and that sometimes these quarrels assume more importance than they should. When you take ideas seriously, it happens. It is also true that many libertarians have a mixed view of conservatives; as a writer who senses the need for the Transcendent in society and in life generally, I see this as a sticking point for many libertarians. Many libertarians consider themselves Christians, not "bull-headed atheists" as I characterized them perhaps too harshly in a previous article (I had in mind some of the movements� academic and intellectual leaders, not the rank and file). However, I see nothing wrong with what Goldberg calls the "purist approach" as at least a regulative ideal: this approach boils down to the idea that the federal government ought to recognize and obey its founding documents: the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution. Goldberg doesn�t think much of some of the topics taken up by LewRockwell.com writers, such as secession and Abraham Lincoln�s faults. Secession, however, backed up by both the willingness and the means to carry it out, is the ultimate check on the central power of a government. The Lincoln Administration put an end to all discussion of the idea until the libertarian intellectuals revived it and LewRockwell.com writers began discussing it (we are not, by the way, alone; such discussions are occurring all over the country). The Lincoln Administration therefore paved the way for the rise first of progressivism and social-activist government and then of the welfare-warfare state itself. This, in a nutshell, is why a number of LewRockwell.com writers took up the "Lincoln question." Nobody else would do it, and we�ve learned we certainly can�t expect the in-the-beltway crowd to do it. So in rejoinder to Goldberg, let me add my voice to the chorus. We�re the competition, we�re willing to take the chances you in-the-beltway guys wouldn�t dream of taking, and we�re here to stay. This rather turns the tables: you are the one who is stuck with us. Get used to it. Truth be known, I�d rather have you as an ally. But you�re going to have to leave that beltway universe first, come down off the mountain and join us in the real world. March 10, 2000 Steven Yates has a Ph.D. in Philosophy and is the author of Civil Wrongs: What Went Wrong With Affirmative Action (ICS Press, 1994). He is presently compiling selected essays into a single volume tentatively entitled View From the Gallery and a work on a second book, The Paradox of Liberty. He also writes for the Edgefield Journal, and is available for lectures. He lives in Columbia, South Carolina. Copyright © 2001 LewRockwell.com End<{{ T' A<>E<>R Forwarded as information only; no endorsement to be presumed + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this material is distributed without charge or profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this type of information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Integrity has no need of rules. -Albert Camus (1913-1960) + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + The only real voyage of discovery consists not in seeking new landscapes but in having new eyes. -Marcel Proust ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ The libertarian therefore considers one of his prime educational tasks is to spread the demystification and desanctification of the State among its hapless subjects. His task is to demonstrate repeatedly and in depth that not only the emperor but even the "democratic" State has no clothes; that all governments subsist by exploitive rule over the public; and that such rule is the reverse of objective necessity. He strives to show that the existence of taxation and the State necessarily sets up a class division between the exploiting rulers and the exploited ruled. He seeks to show that the task of the court intellectuals who have always supported the State has ever been to weave mystification in order to induce the public to accept State rule and that these intellectuals obtain, in return, a share in the power and pelf extracted by the rulers from their deluded subjects. [[For a New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto, Murray N. Rothbard, Fox & Wilkes, 1973, 1978, p. 25]] <A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/">www.ctrl.org</A> DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER ========== CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic screeds are unwelcomed. Substance�not soap-boxing�please! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'�with its many half-truths, mis- directions and outright frauds�is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. ======================================================================== Archives Available at: http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html <A HREF="http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html">Archives of [EMAIL PROTECTED]</A> http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ <A HREF="http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/">ctrl</A> ======================================================================== To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
