In a New York Times op-ed from a few weeks ago, Bill Kristol had this to say to encourage his fellow “conservatives”:
It’s not easy being a conservative movement in a modern liberal democracy. It’s not easy to rally a comfortable and commercial people to assume the responsibilities of a great power. It’s not easy to defend excellence in an egalitarian age. It’s not easy to encourage self-reliance in the era of the welfare state. It’s not easy to make the case for the traditional virtues in the face of the seductions of liberation, or to speak of duties in a world of rights and of honor in a nation pursuing pleasure.
As a moderately-conservative libertarian who’s supporting Barack Obama for president, I have a few questions for him:
What real conservative can say, with a straight face, that our “comfortable and commercial people” have the “responsibilities of a great power”? First, a true pro-capitalist conservative would tell you that comfort and commerce are things worth fighting for, not deriding. Second, the same would deride not our comfort but any tyrannical delusion that we have any duty but to our own happiness. This is what makes you a “neo-conservative”, Kristol. You’re not a conservative at all. You’re a wannabe tyrant. We’ve seen what happens when a true neocon gets power and decides he has a responsibility to spread democracy.
Where is this excellence you’re defending? Neoconservatism put Bush in office. Or are you talking about the growing divide between the extremely wealthy and the extremely poor and progressives’ fight to end special access to legislation by fat cats who are hell-bent on delivering us straight to corporatist fascism? While character and achievement varies from person to person, our representation in Congress and our treatment under the law must always be equal, or do you really want the fascist oligarchy that would result from ignoring that?
Have you ever lived on welfare? I’m not one to defend handouts, but do you, Mr. Kristol, have any idea how few people actually want to be on welfare? Do you know how little money is available to the poor?
If liberation is so seductive, perhaps you would care to enlighten us as to what is so deadly about it? Are your “traditional virtues” better simply because they’re older? And why must these virtues be foisted upon others?
Have you read the Constitution? Do you have a firm mental grasp on the concept of rights? Don’t answer; I already know you don’t. To speak of duties in a world of rights is to speak of nothing but tyranny, Mr. Kristol. No one, especially the government, has the right to demand any positive action from anyone. To say that I have a duty—a responsibility without consent—to anyone or anything is the height of the slave-driving, divine-rights world our ancestors dug themselves out of to make this country a free one.
Lastly, you betray your ultimate failure as a human being by decrying the pursuit of pleasure. For those of us who know better, lasting happiness is the highest goal in life. What else is freedom for except the right to pursue happiness in the best way we know how? To insinuate otherwise is to relegate us to the role of fodder for the state.
Here’s a nice editorial in the LA Times about why Naomi Klein either misrepresents or misunderstands Milton Friedman (the late defender of capitalism). Don’t forget to scroll to the comments.
I’m an angry atheist. I admit it. In fact, I’m even proud of it. There are somethingsinthisworld that deserve no response other than unabashed, righteous anger, after all. (And that does not even come close to an exhaustive list.)
This may be the best response to people challenging my anger response.
When considering whether many businessmen and, more importantly, politicians may have more Objectivist-/capitalism-friendly leanings than is currently the fad and whether few of them could speak out concerning these leanings, I had a thought:
Theory 1: The so-called Founding Fathers were some of the intellectuals of their day. They were much more highly-educated than the populace-at-large, and assembled the Constitution in such a way as only to need to appease other intellectuals/politicians of similar leanings. The populace itself was simply expected to react, knee-jerk style, to the tyranny of an absolute monarchy, and approve of said Fathers’ founding laws. The ideals and reasoning behind the ideals of capitalism, limited government, and separation of church and state had not reached the level of zeitgeist in the populace but had many followers in levels of politics and academia.
Theory 2: Classical liberalism was the zeitgeist of the day. The populace, while perhaps not interested in all its reasons, embraced these principles on a common sense level. The politicians and other intellectuals simply led the charge to formalize what the people already wanted.
If the former is the case, I doubt whether such a thing could happen again. For the better, I think, we have shed ourselves of the need for unquestioned leadership from an intellectual class. However, no small group of intellectuals could, again, lead an entire fledgling nation into either rebellion or novel and radical directions.
On the other hand (theory 3?), perhaps history is full of events that spur the zeitgeist on to new things. It’s not gradual evolution of ideas (though that does happen) but punctuated, dramatic cataclysms of popular thought that cause events like this to happen. For instance, perhaps while the ideas of Voltaire and Montesquieu were brewing and trickling from the intellectuals to the commoners, the colonies’ rebellion against Britain was what crystallized those ideas in the masses. It took such a dramatic turn of events for the masses to embrace new and radical ideas.
If that’s the case, I wonder what leaf we’ve turned since 9/11. Will history show that the masses embraced a new kind of imperialistic xenophobia? Will it tell how we abandoned long-held principles like the sanctity of habeas corpus, trial by jury, and human rights in general? Or will those merely be tittles in the text, after which the populace awoke from its deliberate slumber, realized that the cost of absolute security is tyranny, and demanded justice—not vengeance—for the accused and liberty for the law-abiding?
The least likely possibility is, I think, that history will say we went about our merry ways while nothing changed.
I’m rather new to the rather interesting enigma that is Christopher Hitchens, and I find that I often disagree with him, but as a religion-hating atheist, I find myself rather often shouting in agreement with him for his politically-incorrect but flat-fucking-out true statements about religion.
In celebration of hatred of superstition and in solidarity with all those who call out the irrational bullshit that is god-worship, here are some of my favorite clips of him from our blessed YouTube:
In reference to ecumenism: “We need to have inoculation against plague, not the spread of a more gentle version of it.”
When Sean Hannity asks if he’s angry at God, Hitchens responds: “Not at God, of course. That would be absurd.”
When asked why a “religious nation” (the US) had to save his “secular nation” (the UK) from the Nazis in WW2, he politely reminds the questioner that America is a secular nation by law and the UK is a religious nation by law.
“Religion ends where philosophy begins just like alchemy ends where chemistry begins just like astrology ends where astronomy begins.”
In many cases, this guy says on a national stage what I believe, and with conviction and eloquence. Now, Mr. Hitchens, please do something with your hair … like not boozing it up in DC all the time.
Now finally, my favorite short clip:
“I think [religion should be] treated with ridicule and hatred and contempt, and I claim that right.” I could kiss him.
Just for the record, I am not a posthumous mouthpiece for Ayn Rand. Nor am I a mouthpiece for the Ayn Rand Institute. But every once in a while, they send out a press release that I can wholeheartedly agree with. My only addendum: Justice Kennedy is a retarded Jesus-loving ass-clown.
Ayn Rand Institute Press Release
Abortion Ban Should Have Been Overturned
April 18, 2007
Irvine, CA—The Supreme Court has upheld the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003, which outlaws a particular method of late-term abortion. Speaking for the majority, Justice Kennedy declared that “the law need not give abortion doctors unfettered choice in the course of their medical practice.”
“But it is not a proper function of government to dictate medical practices,” said Dr. Keith Lockitch, a resident fellow at the Ayn Rand Institute. “If a woman chooses to have an abortion, it is for her and her doctor—not Congress or the judiciary—to decide which medical procedure is most appropriate.
“Is the ‘Partial-Birth Abortion’ ban constitutional? Not if the Constitution is meant to guarantee a woman’s right to her life, liberty and the pursuit of her happiness.”
