Naderism in Defense of Liberty is No Vice
No conservative or libertarian can possibly contemplate voting for either of the “major” party candidates, this time around, on several grounds, the most conspicuous being their intractable and almost instinctive predilection for deploying the all-too-visible hand of government as the end-all and be-all of “solutions” to our problems, foreign as well as domestic.
As far as the frontrunner, Barack Obama, is concerned, his vow to “redistribute the wealth” disqualifies him from consideration, although this hasn’t stopped the fabled “Obamacons” from inventing the wildest, most extravagant evasions in order to rationalize their capitulation to fashion. Here is Andrew Sullivan, reigning monarch of the Obamacons, with his own quite typical apologia:
Conservatism is not an ideology. It’s a disposition. And sometimes it takes what [Michael] Oakeshott called ‘trimming’ to keep the ship afloat. Moderation matters. In some ways, I see Obama as a return to moderation in American politics. And it’s conservatives who have become ideologues who cannot accept it.
Moderation in defense of liberty is no vice – hardly a philosophy to inspire us to go to the barricades, but, then again, going to the barricades would itself be immoderate, and we can’t have that. By defining conservatism as a “disposition,” Sullivan rather neatly segues into redefining it as his disposition, which is–as always–to go with the crowd, and, in this case, fall head over heels in love with the redistributionist messiah.
This isn’t conservatism, it’s narcissism–but to Old Musclglutes, no such distinction exists. Everywhere he looks, he sees his reflection: his disdain for radicalism limns his own evolution from full-throated Jacobinism, in the heady days when neocon-generated war hysteria stalked the land, to Bush critic and war skeptic. It’s no coincidence–as the Marxists used to say–that these changing moods reflect the fickle gyrations of the general public: to say that Sullivan is a weathervane would be doing a great disservice to those ancient and useful devices, which herald the approach of coming storms.
Every movement has renegades [.pdf file], but the Bushian apostates are a particularly loathesome bunch. The whole sorry parade–from Ken “Cakewalk” Adelman to reformed neocon Francis Fukuyama–has all the dignity and gravitas of a stampede to get out of a crowded theater after someone has yelled “Fire!”
What must be particularly galling to loyal party hacks is that these are the very people, in many cases, who set the fire in the first place: Adelman, for example, spent the better part of the previous decade agitating for a US invasion of Iraq. It hasn’t exactly been the “cakewalk” he and his fellow war-birds predicted. Yet he has the chutzpah to stand there and deny any responsibility, laying all the blame conveniently elsewhere.
It’s almost enough to make one sympathize with the McCain campaign–but not quite. For the simple fact of the matter is that John McCain is not psychologically stable enough to have his finger on the nuclear trigger. As Senator Thad Cochran of Mississippi put it:
“The thought of his being president sends a cold chill down my spine. He is erratic. He is hotheaded. He loses his temper and he worries me.”
A McCain presidency would involve us in any number of wars, not only in the Middle East–we’d stay in Iraq, indefinitely, and take on Iran and Syria to boot–but also in Russia’s “near abroad,” including, Abkhazia, Ossetia, Belarus, and any number of Central Asian ‘stans.
On the domestic front, McCain is right on, as we used to say, in telling it like it is and calling out the Dear Leader as a socialist, albeit not of the old-fashioned Marxist sort. (He’s closer to Tony Blair than Kim Il Sung, although his cult of personality is the hottest since Stalin’s time).
There’s just one proper answer to this McCainiac volley, however, and that is: Look who’s talking!
McCain not only supported the bank bailout, he issued a joint statement with Obama endorsing it–thus missing the one opportunity he had to really embrace a genuine populism and paint the Democratic nominee as the candidate of the elites. McCain could have won the election if he opposed the bailout—but that, of course, was and is impossible, since he represents a different wing of the same corporate interests.
The de facto nationalization of the banks is a giant step taken toward socialism, although it is a unique variant that I would call socialism-for-the-rich, or social corporatism. Before the world went mad and ostensible “conservatives” began making arguments for Big Government, the idea of a Republican presidential candidate defending such a measure would have been inconceivable. Today, however, in a world where everything is inverted – including traditional political affiliations as well as cultural values--the only differences between the Democratic and Republican varieties of this ideological consensus are to be found in the fine print, with a magnifying glass.
The same is true in the foreign policy realm, where the only differences between the two “major” party candidates are stylistic. In the social-democratic equivalent of John Galt’s speech, we heard the Dear Leader inveighing against “Russian aggression” and vowing that he’d never let Iran get hold of the same nukes Israel has had for half a century. That the first phase of Obama’s war dance would feature a perhaps prolonged bout of “negotiations”–i.e. a series of hard-and-fast demands laid out by the US government, amounting to sky-writing “Surrender Dorothy!” over Tehran–should fool exactly no one. Yet millions are fooled–and won’t wake up until it’s too late to do anything about it.
No principled advocate of liberty can even consider the candidates of the two “major” parties: both are thoroughly reprehensible, and would take the country even farther down the wrong path–toward economic dislocation and war. Which leaves us with–what? Or, rather, whom?
I was an early and vocal supporter of Ron Paul, and yet he stopped campaigning precisely when he should have started–or, at any rate, re-started. His refusal to go all the way, and launch a third party bid has got to be one of the grandest missed opportunities of all time. To have predicted the banking meltdown, so loudly and insistently, and then have it occur just as the presidential campaign reached a crescendo–Paul could easily have garnered 10 percent of the vote, at a minimum, elbowing aside McCain as the authentic defender of what is left of our economic liberty.
As it is, the Paulian movement foundered, and became entangled in a sectarian battle with the Libertarian nominee, Bob Barr, over matters too inconsequential to detail. Instead of uniting the freedom movement, in his post-primary mode Paul and his organization, the Campaign for Liberty, divided his followers by endorsing the obscure Chuck Baldwin, the candidate of the idiosyncratic Constitution Party–some of whose top officials and activists were key Paul campaign advisors.
Barr’s arrogance and ultra-sectarian attitude did nothing to help the situation, but there was no need for Paul to take such an unnecessary revenge. The smallness of the whole sorry affair is what makes it so pathetic–and it’s a tragedy that the Paul movement had to end this way, at least in this phase of its development. Since none of these candidates and parties conducted themselves with anything approaching wisdom, neither deserves the votes of serious conservative and libertarian activists–because we deserve better.
And there is better: Ralph Nader.
On the defining issue of the campaign – and the age – Nader is spot on: the bailout of the banks, he avers, “was clearly socialism bailing out capitalism.” Not that this version of capitalism has anything to do with authentically free enterprise: “This is the collapse of corporate capitalist ideology,” says Nader. “I emphasize corporate, because the only capitalism left now is small business. They’re the only ones who are free to go bankrupt.”
On foreign policy, Nader is the only consistent anti-interventionist in the race, or, at least, the only one who makes this an important part of his campaign. Unlike McCain and Obama, who both revel in baiting the Russian bear, Nader asks: “Why don’t we leave the Russians alone?” Why, he asks, are we provoking Moscow into another cold war? Obama, the candidate of the supposedly “antiwar” wing of the Democratic party, is pledged to usher Georgia as well as Ukraine into NATO – which the Russians view as an aggressive act. Both want anti-missile “defense” shields in place in Eastern and Central Europe – only Nader seems to understand that this is just a scam for enriching the military-industrial-congressional complex.
Nader is the Eugene Debs of our times: he is brave, intractably committed to principle, and disdainful of the limousine liberals and their “conservative” counterparts who grimace in maidenly horror at the sight and sounds of such truth-telling populism. Most importantly, Ralph Nader knows who are the real enemies of the American people, and what is the source of their power. He, alone, is serious about breaking that power. While I may disagree with some of his more socialistic proposals, and probably wouldn’t last very long at a Nader-for-President meeting before getting into it with his commie followers, I don’t know of anyone in American political life, at the moment, who has more genuine good old fashioned integrity. I also can’t think of anyone who annoys the limousine liberals and Obama-oids more–and since these folks are our future rulers, or so it seems, that is reason enough to cheer his campaign and his continued presence in public life.
Comments
Oh, Justin: you just made your third-party pick with...never mind, I won’t say it. I will instead tell you that your endorsement of Nader is a mega brain-fart. Why would you trash your creds for this way-over-the-hill Corvairophobe? If you can’t choose any better, why not just follow Lew Rockwell’s advice and not choose at all? Or my advice: stick to your Antiwar.com mission.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
I think the key here is to vote third party. It almost doesn’t matter which one.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Nader is a socialist.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
You have nearly brought tears to my eyes, Justin! I read your column at Antiwar daily and, well, I’ll just say that your my favorite writer. I too was an early and vocal support of Dr. Paul. I attempted to stick it to the GOP by becoming a delegate and joining my Ron Paul meetup group in the county, district and state conventions. I participated in the money bombs and generally invested a great deal in the campaign. I am a devoted member of the Campaign For Liberty and will continue to be, but Paul’s recent endorsement of Baldwin frankly disgusted me. It surely has been divisive, probably more than it seems right now. I would guess about half of Paul’s movement have jumped on the Baldwin bandwagon, maybe another 25% support Barr, and the rest are split between McKinney and a Ron Paul write-in campaign. Until now I thought I was in the forest. Of the thousands of Paulians I interact with daily I’ve met only a handful backing Nader. I just don’t get it. I agree with everything in your article, including your wariness of supporting some of Nader’s more socialistic ideas. Still I appreciate Nader’s honesty, his anti-interventionism and his willingness to stand up to AIPAC, even if I disagree with him on principle 30% of the time. To me he is far and away the best candidate, and your endorsement means a lot to me. Thank you!
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue; Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice
great quote, use to be my favorite. It was forever tainted in my mind however when I found out it had actually been penned by Harry Jaffa.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Nader: Bailout of the banks “was clearly socialism bailing out capitalism.” Is Nader criticizing or approving?
All seriousness aside, I don’t see why Ron Paul should have backed Barr when even the libertarians think Barr is a joke. It was awfully nice of Barr to extend his ring for Paul to kiss, but we can excuse him for passing on the opportunity.
There is always schismatic motion in third parties, basically because they’re made up of people who’ve already turned away from the main paths. But to condemn Paul for endorsing Chuck Baldwin, who more than any candidate out there (save Paul himself) stands for the platform of the Old Right? I don’t get it. Nader has his attractions, but he doesn’t begin to compare with Baldwin.
I fear Raimondo shows the same over-fastidiousness he condemns in Paul and others when he endorses Nader. If you’re going to endorse third party, why not endorse the best?
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Dear Justin Raimondo,
I agree fully with your endorsement. First of all it is laudable, that you rise above ideology and emphasize integrity of character first. Even if one does not agree with Nader, his spoken words have value, which makes him a rarity in politics.
I also think that libertarianism has more in common with Nader’s ideas than is at first obvious. Nader’s main targets are big corporations (military-industrial complex, the pharmaceutical lobby, etc.). Since the state is intertwined to the extreme with big money, being against the state and being against corporate capitalism are more or less equivalent. Nader would support small business at the expense of large corporations, hence both libertarianism and Nader are against centralization, they just emphasize different sides of it.
Then again, libertarians have some things incorrect. Some problems do need global solutions: for example the environment (perhaps this would not be so if there was not so much corporate centralization). It is also not a bad thing to reduce the influence of profit interest in education or healthcare.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
We need a word to describe the Obamacon phenomenon. The trouble is Obamaconism is bigger than Obama.
Obamaconism is just the wider and older tendency for many conservative and / or libertarian right wing intellectuals to opt left. And sometimes to fashion quite elaborate rationalisations for the left shift.
I suspect there are two drivers, one internal and the other external for the left temptation.
First, the internal motivation. To a large extent as Joseph Schumpeter diagnosed (and later Robert Nozick built on Schumpeter to develop a tougher critique.. see Nozick’s argument here], the “left” is really the class ideology of the intellectual class. It reprsents a drive for corporate and collective power by the intellectual class who despite their self professed superior learning resent playing ‘second fiddle’ in a bourgeois society.
Conservative intellectuals often have a tough row to hoe. Being a right winger from the intellectual class is often a one way ticket to alienation and unpopularity among one’s social peers. Obamaconism and it’s predecessors in some ways reflect a yearning by many conservative intellectuals “to go home again”. I doubt whether there are many grass roots Obamacons among the Red State evangelical Christian right.
Secondly the external explanation. Intellectuals, even conservative intellectuals, do not operate in a vacuum. They have to leverage off and navigate within a complex infrastructure of ideas and approaches and the left has a dominant position in controlling this space and guards it’s privileged position jealously. This is why there is such a double standard applied to right wing ideas. It’s often in rebelling against the obvious double standard that most young conservative intellectuals get their introduction to the broad right.
Despite maverick status, the topography of the terrain is still biased against us. So often the path of least resistance for a conservative intellectual is to fashion pseudo-con rationaliztions for rolling downhill with the left.
This explains why so many right wing writers write as if they are ‘looking over their own shoulder’, their left shoulder, to gain approving nods from their leftie peers, as if they needed their approval.
One of the great things about Justin’s intellectual mentor, the great Murray Rothbard, was that, despite a one-time flirtation with the left, he didn’t need or want their approval and in fact enjoyed rubbing them up the wrong way.
Justin has thankfully carried on this great tradition. Bravo!
As for Nader, although the man is a socialist of sorts, he has always targeted corporate socialism as his bete noir and his anti-corporate socialist language definitely has tones of the Old Right. He’s definitely no Obama.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
“Don’t vote for the fake Arab Obama, vote for the REAL Arab, Nader!”
One of the nice things about Mr. Nader is that, like Ron Paul, he doesn’t project the burning hunger to be Sun King that most politicians do.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Mr. Higdon seems not to be aware that Mr. Raimondo also backed Mr. Nader back in 2004 (even endorsing him in the American Conservative).
http://www.amconmag.com/article/2004/nov/08/00010/
Click to flag this comment as abusive
From the link to the article on the “idiosyncratic” Constitution Party platform:
“The Founding Fathers ... admired the Christian religion in many respects, but for the most part they were not believers themselves...”
This is a demonstrably untrue statement. There were high profile Founders who were not orthodox (small o), but the vast majority were orthodox. Read Bradford’s A Worthy Company for example.
The Paul endorsement of Baldwin has indeed “divided” the movement. It has smoked out the rabid anti-Christian and anti-religion elements.
The idea that you can form a conservative movement without wanting to conserve the particularlisticly Christian character of this country is utterly foolish. Then what is it conserving?
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Baldwin campaigned for Ron Paul and made videos promoting him.
Barr didn’t even show at the press conference Ron Paul called for third party candidates. That being said, Barr DID say some very good things about Paul (heaping praise on him, describing him as the “gold standard” of conservatism) when introducing him in the 2008 Conservative Political Action Conference.
I support both Barr and Baldwin, but for the sake of promoting the core of the liberty movement: Ron Paul, I am promoting Ron Paul’s pick, Chuck Baldwin over Barr.
This election is not about winning any more (obviously), it’s about creating a united front that can, first and most importantly of all, win the ideological battle and make constitutional republicanism the dominant ideology of the chattering classes, and carry on and win Congressional seats (campaign for liberty) and the next presidential elections.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Mr. Raimondo, I concur with you. In Spring, I did what I thought I would never again do, i.e.: Take the Republican ballot in the primary—in order to vote for Dr. Paul. As one who tries to keep Faith with the Old Gods, I cannot in good conscience vote for Pastor Baldwin. OTOH, both the Democratic candidate for President, and the Republican candidate for Vice-President, are creatures of star-making machinery, which suffices any more to engender initial skepticism—which both have amply confirmed, IMHO.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
¿Como se dice, “We’re in a world of hurt”?
Nader’s serial candidacy is as relevant as the late Pat Paulsen’s,and besides, the Corvair was a much better car than the Vega.
Just kidding, Nader is useful in his role as the proverbial gadfly.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Justin - I agree with your choice, but I don’t think Ron Paul should be a factor in how you reached your conclusion. Ron Paul was right to dissolve the coalition when he did, because the Revolution was obviously unstable and only held together because of one Man. We need a stable coalition base and at least a handful of Pauls, some of whom may be the Congressmen of both parties that voted twice against the bailout bill. (Incidentally, if you’re going to vote, take the trouble to find out how your Congressman voted on this at RP’s Campaign For Liberty. Some of these “public servants” in both parties need to be sent on their way; now’s your chance.)
We were enthusiastic and cooperative largely because we were getting attention. The point of the money-bombs was the money-bombs, for instance. Since no one, even at the highest point of enthusiasm expected to win (and if they did they were delusional) the goal was to expose the corruption in the system and the complicity of the media, which he did in blazing triumph. The Republicans made a major mistake (from their POV) by including him in the debates. They gambled that
RP would make a fool of himself and fizzle out early, like Tancredo, which would have happened if he hadn’t gone out swinging. Suddenly, this “nut” is telling the whole country, in detail, about the scam, and counter-punching hard when idiots Guiliani and Mormon boy whazziz name took the bait. At least McCain was smart enough to shut up and smirk instead of getting bitch-slapped like he would have. And later, the depantsing of Hannity. Mwah! Mission (as far as it would go) accomplished.
My point is, however unfortunate, the Paul campaign is over, he is not a candidate and I respectfully submit that you should have left him out of your calculus for this piece. My conclusion is that Nader is a better choice than the Tweedles, and an acceptable third choice if Baldwin or Barr are not on your ballot, McKinney is head and shoulders over the Tweedles on foreign policy and no worse on domestic. What we’re really looking for is a high percentage of protest votes. Then we all (together) need to start pulling up the rails in front of the Obama express.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
I have voted for Nader in the past two elections. I plan to vote for Baldwin although he may not be on the ballot in New York in which case I will vote for either Barr or Nader. It really doesn’t matter which. Nader probably has the best ideas, ie parliamentary system of government.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
I have read everything Raimondo has written for about a year, but I still don’t quite understand his objection to Baldwin beyond “obscurity.” You yourself Justin, were obscure to me a year ago. On the left, Nader is certainly the preferred opposition, but opposition nonetheless. Your endorsement of him is unsafe at any speed.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
I’ve been a fan of Nader for a while now, and actually worked in his campaign in 2004. I agree with Justin R. Nader is really the only candidate that rails against Corporate Power---which is really STATE power, as the modern Corporation is merely an extention of the state. He is also the only consistent NON-INTERVENTIONIST candidate out there. As an Arab-American, he is completely free of the modern liberal romantic fascination with Israel…
In Maryland, I can vote Nader, Barr OR Baldwin. I like Baldwin, but NADER is really the best third party choice right now because his positions criss-cross both left and right.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
While it is clear that no third party will win the top office, I would agree with daveg and others that the point is to vote third party. Nader is not my homie by any means, but a third party vote of any stripe is a vote against the oligarchy that we all loathe.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Vote 3rd Party. It’s the best choice.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Baldwin is a Christian, very much in the same mold as America’s founders, and his Christianity is what upsets lifestyle libertarians (Raimondo is both a lifestyle libertarian and a principled one). But isn’t lifestyle libertarianism guilty of the same kind of narcissism that Raimondo accuses Sullivan?
If Baldwin has the good judgment to oppose the War Party and its New World Order agenda, even if its motivated by a desire to restore the Christian ethic to America, isn’t that good enough, or must he also hold his tongue about the kind of libertine values that dumbed down America and gave the Neocons and Neolibs a clear path to power in the first place?
The battle isn’t some pure concept of ‘liberty’ vs. the NWO, because liberty is an abstract, and, as we have seen, can be incorporated by the NWO as a pretext. The battle is the Western civilzational ethic, which is built upon a Christian foundation, vs the NWO ethic, which is built upon greed, statism, Zionism, hegemony, and delusions of choseness and supremacism.
Lifestyle libertarians who put their personal narcissm above a return to the Founders’ ethics because they have issues with the morality of the Founders’ religion are playing the role of useful idiots for the War Party and the NWO. The Founders never would have been able to produce the Constitution that American liberty flows from but for their Christian ethics. One was part and parcel of the other. Get over it. Lifestyle libertarians seem bent on concentrating on the inquisition caricature of Christianity instead of being thankful to it for all the gifts that it provided a basis for.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
I applaud Justin for his courage to endorse Mr. Nader.
2008 is the best year in a long time to make a statement with a third party vote. If nothing else a large number of third party votes...to any third party candidate ...will offer hope for those who would like to join or support a third party.
To the Democrats and to the Republicans...A pox on both your houses!
Click to flag this comment as abusive
I don’t think I will be sending any more money to Antiwar.com!
I look at it like this. If we have a 99.9% chance McCain will start dropping bombs on Iran (followed by other countries) we probably have an 80% chance Obama will do the same to Iran, with maybe a 65% chance he will follow up with the other countries as well. Therefore, I vote for less stupidity. As for the 3rd Party candidates: when someone really works at it over the next 4 years in preperation for a campaign, I’ll take a good look at ‘em. Goodbye, Justin!
Click to flag this comment as abusive
I am thrilled to see other libertarians supporting Ralph Nader. On several counts - opposition to the dominance of Big Corporations, non-interventionism, protection of civil liberties, raising serious doubts about the current monetary structure, and talking about decreasing the National Debt - he is at one with our positions.
There is much about Nader being a “socialist”, but certainly not more than the Statists of the two major parties. On the contrary, he has adopted positions on the above issues which will naturally decrease the size of government. He has also broken a “holy of holies” among those on the far-left: attaching the name of “socialism” to the Corporations. This is a classic libertarian position!
There is also the important matter of the Israel lobby, which has a stranglehold upon U.S. foreign policy when it comes to the Middle East. This is a matter of principles, and only Nader has the courage to speak the truth. He has rightly exposed the reality of Obama as being much the same as McCain on nearly every issue - many supporters of both have been unable to really highlight any fundamental differences, opting instead to repeat cliches and slogans against the other.
I voted for Ron Paul in the primaries and he obviously would have been my first choice. Nader is the only candidate with whom I find myself agreeing on most issues. Baldwin is good on most issues, but some of his policies would be too much influenced by his Evangelical beliefs. Barr is nothing but a pretender, who is not a true libertarian. McKinney leaves too far to the left on some social and cultural issues, as well as the Green Party’s environmentalism. For these reasons, I have now chosen Ralph Nader as the candidate who best reflects my own views.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Great piece Justin, though I have no problems with Paul’s endorsement of Baldwin.
I myself endorsed Nader on my blog this week http://leftconservativeblog.blogspot.com/2008/10/ralph-nader-for-president.html
The choice between Baldwin and Nader was tough for me, but in the end I went with candidate on more ballots and most likely to draw the most attention as a “middle finger” to the major parties.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Sorry.
In my heart, I know he’s trite.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
The Constitution Party is the third largest political party in the country.
It’s presidential candidate - the modest Chuck Baldwin - gets endorsed by the real maverick of the presidential
race (Ron P.), as well as by various paleocon luminaries.
He’s also consistently for Constitutional government.
I’d say Baldwin is an up-and-comer, not obscure.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
No, izzy, it is not. Remember the CP uses the American Independent numbers out in California which is not backing Baldwin but is running Alan Keyes. Now granted I expect the Baldwin AIP to overthrow the Keyes AIP next year!
Ah third party politics! The battles are so fierce cause the stakes are so low. Absolute powerlessness corrupts absolutely.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
I am glad you are generaly not afraid to cross the left - right divide.
I think the last time you recommended a vote for Nader it was a good recommendation.
But I think this time you may be trying too hard. I feel you may have been looking for an excuse to do it - and found it.
Bob Barr is a generic Republican and the Libertarian Party has long since sold out. Ron Paul was by far the best man in the race and he endorsed Chuck Baldwin. Balwdin is a man who said he would not be running if Ron Paul was, he actually belives Paul to be the better candidate of the two. What a far cry is that from egomaniacal Bob Barr. Balwdin is far from being a libertarian, but he is much more of a libertarian than Barr or Nader.
Nader isn`t a bad candidate, but we have better. If you are not boicotting, vote Baldwin.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Rob, Hi. Thanks for the comment.
Can you clarify: The CP Party bills itself
as third largest party in terms of voter registration -
how do the internal politics of the AIP in California
affect that?
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Get the anti-Christian infidels outa’ my movement!
Click to flag this comment as abusive
To Rob re “Mr. Higdon seems not to be aware that Mr. Raimondo also backed Mr. Nader back in 2004”: In that case, Justin does not have the excuse of cerebral flatulence in 2008. I hereby withdraw it.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
I could not agree more that Ron Paul’s exit from the contest was a mistake, and further that the ‘campaign for liberty’ is a fractured remnant (my term for it) of the Ron Paul movement.
Having jumped in at my earliest chance, I was one of many who had known about Ron Paul’s ability and integrity.
I stopped supporting the supporters when they (around here at least) became republican clones and made their deals with the devil.
This is the political disappointment of a lifetime for me.
And you know, I get no credit for having told people for many years now that there would be crises and financial emergencies. That doesn’t bother me as much as the way people are just resigned to it - wherever it leads.
Oh well, who wants to be president anyway?
Rich
Click to flag this comment as abusive
“Lifestyle libertarians ... are playing the role of useful idiots for the War Party and the NWO.”
To Chris Moore
An excellent piece on Mr Raimondo. Based on his vehement attacks against 911 truthers and the fact that he knows much about the murky events surrounding 911, I would argue that Raimondo is far worse than a “useful idiot”. But your piece indicates why he is not to be trusted. Ironically, Nader supports a fresh 911 inquiry and has stated that there is much in the official coverup story that doesn’t make sense.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Nader’s vision of America is one where the top income bracket pays a 37% income tax, where there is a 37% estate tax levied on estates over $10 million, where the federal government provides health care (where it has no Constitutional authority to do so), and where there is a “sales tax” levied on purchases of stocks.
Picking him is not the libertarian move.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
I’m surprised there aren’t more people following lew rockwell’s lead and sitting on their hands Nov 4th--particularly in Connecticut if you can’t even write in a candidate.I think it was Gordon Tullock who said he doesn’t vote because you’re about a hundred times more likely to die in a car accident on the wait to the polling station than you are to actually affect the outcome of the election with your single vote.
To hell with managerial democracy. why legitimate our overlords by participating? The only truly symbolic vote is a non-vote.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
oops, meant to post that under Brimelows article
Click to flag this comment as abusive
@ ian: “your piece indicates why he is not to be trusted.”
No, I don’t think he’s not to be trusted. I believe, and wrote, that he’s a principled libertarian. But there is a conflict and hostility between lifestyle libertarians and Christian libertarians that reared its head when Paul endorsed Baldwin. If conservative libertarians (on most issues) in the Raimondo vein ever want to get anywhere, they’re going to have to partner with Ron Paul/Pat Buchanan/Chuck Baldwin libertarian-conservative Christians—something many of them seem unwilling to do in the case Baldwin. (Ron Paul’s Christianity unquestionably informs his politics and world view, too. He just doesn’t point that out much. He likely would have gone further and gotten more traction if he had.)
But really, how much of Raimondo’s political makeup is related to his lifestyle? Judging from his writing, very little. So it really doesn’t make sense for lifestyle libertarian conservatives who agree with Baldwin on probably 80% of the big issues to let such a small component of their political makeup get in the way of the only means of ever enabling the rise of libertarian conservatism, which is to form an alliance with Christians. Of course, conservative-libertarian Christians would have to welcome such an alliance, too. Oil and water? I don’t think so. Raimondo isn’t trying to push his lifestyle on anyone. He’s seems more concerned about politics and the future of America. As long as lifestyle libertarians aren’t militantly pushing a social agenda, I don’t see why its a problem.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
To borrow a phrase from Oliver Stone’s ‘W.’, there’s really no reason to let corrupt GOP charlatans “out Christian” libertarian-conservatives, whose anti-statist, anti-Empire politics are much more consistant with Christian ideals.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
First Ron Paul, then Obama, now Nader. Justin, you can change your mind again - you’ve got 4 whole days to do so. Go on, now! Why do you think it matters if you vote? Do you really believe those simpletons who go on the radio talk shows and tell us how we have no right to bitch about “our” government if we didn’t vote?
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Chris
I am sorry to have put words in your mouth and I agree with most of what you say, however, I don’t agree with your conclusion ("As long as lifestyle libertarians aren’t militantly pushing a social agenda, I don’t see why its a problem.") In my estimation, people like Raimondo, just when you think you have them pegged, will invariably spring nasty surprises (e.g. telling conservatives that they should vote for a socialist). People of his kind are highly divisive to any organisation and (despite his great talents) ultimately far more trouble than they are worth.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
I think Justin is right that keeping Nader around would be a wise move to irritate the War Party with. I’m not voting. I realized no one would address the fundamental problems in this country that divide people. The problem with all the antiwar (libertarians, paleoconservatives, and the left) ideologues is that either they expect to use government intervention, appeal to tradition, or rely on the liberty fairy to create a better society. The solution is understanding others concerns without vilifying them. Then work for a solution without government involvement. Karen De Coster is right in her article “Square Pegs, Round Holes.” Americans are helpless. I think if they don’t help each other learn how to be independent and self-reliant the government will gladly take them as dependents.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/decoster/decoster137.html
The pygmies (antiwar factions) are going to have to settle their own problems before they will take down Gulliver (the War Party).
Click to flag this comment as abusive
I think eep is very sexy and i agree with all of his opinions!
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Readers might be interested in seeing my column “Anarchy for President 2.0”:
http://www.nolanchart.com/article5216.html
Click to flag this comment as abusive
I am a supporter of Ron Paul. Paul endorsed Chuck Baldwin. I am voting for Chuck Baldwin. A kingdom divided against itself will not stand. Our enemies rejoice in our division.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
You had me worried for awhile Justin, when you initially endorsed Obama…
But the one thing I know to be true about you: You are anti-war, right down the line and you put your money where your mouth is.
I’m voting third party and I am telling everyone to vote third party.
The anti-war movement lost its way a long time ago, now it is up to the individual.
No, we won’t win, regardless of which third party candidate we vote for but our vote is an act of consciousness (for peace).
Those who choose to support Obama will live to regret it, once they get over their initial shock, the euphoria wears off and they see Obama for what he is: another war mongering sock puppet.
Glad you came around.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Justin, “this could be the start of a great friendship”.
Nader is the ‘democracy advocate’ of our times, and the only candidate willing to take-on the ‘corporatist Empire’ which controls our country through the facade of its two-party, ‘Vichy’ charade of democracy.
This hidden and unmentioned ‘corporatist Empire’, as Hannah Arendt might say, “entails imperial wars abroad, and tyranny at home.”
Nader is a pro-democracy/anti-empire candidate—and he’s not afraid to say it, or shout it—just like America’s founding fathers.
By being anti-empire, as you note, Nader is anti-war, and anti-socialized capitalist ‘bailouts’, and anti-fascist, and anti-spying, and anti-domestic tyranny, and, and, and anti-quiet on all the oppressions that these two stooges won’t talk about.
With all this anti, some might ask, “well, what’s Nader pro on?”
One word, Pro-democracy
Click to flag this comment as abusive
“After more than 300 years of de facto affirmative action to benefit white males, we definitely need affirmative action for people of color and women to offset enduring historic wrongs as well as present day inequalities.” ~ Ralph Nader’s Platform
http://www.votenader.org/issues/
Click to flag this comment as abusive
I agree with you. Ralph Nader is the best choice. I, however, voted for Obama because I cannot bear to see McCain having any chance to win.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
I have to laugh, Raimondo is against Obama for ‘spreading the wealth’ yet Nader IS FAR more socialistic then Obama on the issues
Nader wants a Canadian style health care
Carbon pollution tax
Wall Street securities speculation tax
Repeal the Taft-Hartley
“Living Wages for All Workers”
“Truly Progressive Taxation”
“Fair Trade that Protects the Environment, Labor Rights and Consumer Needs”
I think Raimondo has given up any right to call himself a libertarian or somebody from the Old Right with this endorsement.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
I live in a swing state where the polls are mostly within the margin of error. So like Peter & Ken I will be voting for the lower level of stupidity. Don’t like it, haven’t voted major party since ‘76, but it’s the rational choice this time around.
At the same time I will not be dropping my support for antiwar.com For one thing, the site’s bigger than just Justin; for another it makes no sense to throw the proverbial baby out with the bathwater. The fact I don’t always agree with Justin is hardly sufficient to cease support for a highly useful device in the effort unseat our current rulers.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
The Jews disagree with Raimondo!
How funny!!
Click to flag this comment as abusive
I read every single editorial that Justin places on the Net. He’s one of the few thought-provoking and eloquent writers out there and this editorial is yet another sample.
Just the other day, I was thinking, “What are my choices in the presidential election?” I too was (am) an ardent Ron Paul supporter and I am still deeply disillusioned that Dr Paul did not permit us to cast a vote for him and his principles. I still do not understand the ‘why’ he stepped down from the campaign.
Having said that, I looked at the other options on the ballot and grimace at the thought to selecting any of them. Baldwin, sorry, too ‘fundie’ for my taste and its extremely ironic that he is the ‘Constitution Party’ candidate.
Barr, no way! He’s a mole within the Libertarian party. A selection that leaves me shaking my head in disbelief and leaves me wondering whether the Libertarian party has destroyed itself from within.
Nader...just too left-leaning for my taste.
I personally have decided to simply NOT cast a vote for a presidential candidate. I prefer not to play along with the system.
I would urge everyone else to do the same…
Click to flag this comment as abusive
I actually enjoyed Ron Paul’s retaliation to Barr blowing off the press conference.. but I won’t even be voting this time around anyhow.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
How odd I have been thinking the same thing.
When I heard Nader debate the constitution party candidate he was actually inspiring despite the contempt I have always had for him.
Barr was too much of a state terrorist in his preening support for the war on drugs and I have a hard time believing he is really a libertarian now.
I think though when push comes to shove I’ll write in my Malemute for president.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
A very interesting discussion. I hope I’ve addressed some of the points made, here:
http://www.takimag.com/blogs/article/what_is_to_be_done/
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Justin,
Your one sentence arguement in dismissing Chuck Baldwin is fatuous coming from a Ron Paul
x-supporter and sounds like the way the neocons dismissed Ron Paul earlier this year.
Chuck Baldwin’s obscurity makes him a fresh face to most of us who only know him as a sincere and
loyal supporter of Ron Paul. How you can mention him in the same sentence as the Iraq war
supporter Bob Barr also eludes me. Are you thinking of joining the Eric Dondero wing of the
libertarian party?
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Justin,
See all these comments… This is why America will never change anytime soon or ever… You have a group of people that will believe in easy lies with a single word “CHANGE” and live their lives without any real consequence or accountability. In another words, they believe that life should be lived like in the movies. When things gets tough they will believe in any lies about change to bring some “fake and temporary” peace to their conscience. See a pattern here with today’s lifestyle. Second, you have a group of people, that are so set in their ways that the words; liberals, Arabs, socialist, Osama is preaching the words of the devil. How can you expect any change from these types of people...Third, you have people not to different from the second group of people that base their alliance to a single political philosophy, like liberal, conservative, libertarian, socialist, etc. Picking a single political philosophy does not work...look back in history. A free market does not work… We are seeing that right now. It will only work if human nature is not present. Why do you think we have laws against monopoly. Socialism does not work because of the existence of human nature, look what happened to USSR. Constitutionism does not work either because the constitution was never meant to stay stagnant but to change with the evolution of the country. Why do you think we have so many loop holes and corruption in capital hill. It is not mainly because they are ignoring it, it is because they find ways around it. Did you ever read a bill before? Try it… Being conservative does not work either. How the hell do you think America got to be a super power, it is not because of being a conservative. It is from trade and wars with other countries, importing great minds from other countries to work here, and having illegals or the poor doing our dirty work. Don’t expect “REAL” change anytime soon. It will be couple of centuries of reforms, wars, cultural acceptances, evolution of our consciene and morals, a higher awareness, and population control. I’m just living life and being part of real and worthwhile reforms in this country and the world. Ralph Nader is a great man (I will continue to vote for him) but born in the wrong era to become President. Maybe in 40 years in the future if the country and world finally wakes up.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Abolishment of the Federal Reserve...you obvious don’t know anything about the banking world… How do you expect money from thousands and thousands of banks to move to each other...?
Click to flag this comment as abusive
To the comment about socialism? What’s wrong with that . Is it a dirty word. Oh, that’s right, from the conservative point of view it would seem to be for the common mman that is. It is ok to have coperate welfare for the rich though.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Patrick C.: “Moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue; Extremism in the
defense of liberty is no vice” was written by Barry Goldwater’s chief speechwriter
for his 1964 campaign, the late Karl Hess, NOT Harry Jaffa.
I doubt very much that Jaffa would ever have possessed the intelligence or the
passion for freedom that originating that phrase required.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
As Tim points out - all that ‘money’ (actually nothing but debt and obligations against the future) wouldn’t be able to move from bank to bank.
What would we do? Use money of value? Pay in person, on teh spot? Of course, we could never allow that.
Aside from the fact that the Ron Paul movement would have been nowhere (where it is now - almost) without what some refer to as ‘lifestyle libertarians’, he could have run his campaign as a Christian and never seen had a ghost of a chance.
I know that I could never have supported him, had he exposed a reliance on (what I consider - as politely as I can) superstition.
I have no choice in this election and refuse to sanction the show.
The concept of independence seems to escape the attention of all ‘libs’, to say nothing of the shameful posturing of republicans and democrats.
I reject the labels and the people who live by them.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
“Nader is a socialist”. Laughable. He’s far to the right of both McCain and Obama on many important issues. He supports certain socialistic measures, but he’s so tame compared to Obama and McCain it’s unbelievable. He’s by far the best third party candidate running. If Paul were running, I’d vote for him in a heartbeat, but Justin is right, Nader is the only one who has been and will always be there. He doesn’t give a damn what anyone thinks and has no loyalty to anyone but the American people and the principles that make America great. Nader is a true patriot and I am proud to vote for him again.
--Daniel Bein
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Raimondo...you are a clown. Your carefully crafted perception management hit jobs on Obama stand in sharp contrast to your earlier soft editorials on the Senator from Illinois. Your attacks reek of Zionist propaganda. Lure in the libotards and convince em to piss in their own well by voting for Mr. Nanny State himself Ralph freakin Nader?
Raimondo you are a clown…
shalom douchebag…
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Reading all the comments explains
why we are not getting anywhere.
So Alaska Bush Pilot - thanks for
suggesting a lovely choice !
S.T. Bernard
Click to flag this comment as abusive
I agree. Nadar is the best candidate to vote for if you are antiwar.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Justin endorses the very same people - Ralph Nader and his Naders Raiders - who actively blocked Libertarian Party petitioners and stole prime site locations in New Hampshire, Ohio, CT and other states this year.
Guess, being a Fascist on Ballot Access/Voting Rights, is perfectly fine for Raimondo.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
The biggest tragedy here is we’re all expending a great deal of energy on the question of who the next President will be, as if it should even matter.
I heartily suggest you give politicians as much attention as they give you. You’ll have reduced stress levels without concerning yourself on who to vote for, what direction to fart in, which ants think you’re pretty, etc.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
I agree. Nadar is the best candidate to vote for if you are antiwar.
Baldwin is just as anti-war as Nader, except he comes to this anti-war position from a nationalistic perspective, whereas Nader comes to it from a left/altruistic perspective.
I respect the fact that Nader is anti-war and has been a thorn in the side of the murderous neocons, but IMO socialism is an immoral government system and can’t be compromised with.
More important than the elections, is the intellectual battle.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Only two candidates have a chance of winning: McCain and Obama. Of the two, McCain seems far more dangerous. Palin is the deal-closer. Neoconservatism is bad enough. Palin’s theocracy would be infinitely worse. A McCain/Palin administration would be characterized by unrelenting continuous warfare against a whole new array of (imagined) enemies. I don’t think that Obama has the passion for killing people that McCain does. Obama might be forced into war. McCain would lead the charge. Also, who do you imagine would be more likely to imprison and torture dissenters - McCain/Palin or Obama? Don’t waste your vote on third-party losers. Repudiate the neoconservatives by voting for Obama!
Click to flag this comment as abusive
““Moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue; Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice”
That quote is not from Jaffa or Hess, it’s from Cicero.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Welcome to the Moronosphere. Population: You.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Dear Justin,
The best election system is well known. If there are n candidates, the ballot is a list of n names
not necessarily different.
To determine the winner you look at all the first name on the ballots and throw the name which
is last.
Then you look at the second name on each ballot disregarding the name which has been thrown out. again you Again you eliminate the last name. And so on.
This is a called the n-1 round voting system with n names.
Many countries have a two round system on two distinct election days, but with computers a n-1
round is feasable and the most democratic. Of course in this country, with our circus of
caucusses, primaries and two party-system we are not ready for that!
Let us now go back at this election. Let us suppose there are three candidates:
McCain, Obama and Nader and we have a two round system.
you will vote:
1 Nader
2 Obama,
knowing that Nader will not pass the first round but expressing your preference.
Let us suppose now that we have a one round system and that all candidates are “acceptable”.
Again vote Nader.
But if you think that McCain is a risk you cannot take
“The thought of his being president sends a cold chill down my spine. He is erratic. He is hotheaded. He loses his temper and he worries me.”
(and I agree with you) then the right vote is Obama. It is that simple.
I am sorry to bug you with my lecture, I use to teach Math…
Enjoy all your writings,
Yves
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Five days ago, Nader put out a press release asking John McCain to explain what he knows about the sinking of the USS Liberty by Israel in 1967. McCain’s father handled the inquiry into whether Israel made a mistake or did it on purpose.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
If you don’t vote for McCain, please don’t vote for Obama. Vote third party, vote for Nader (don’t vote for any other third party candidate - Nader needs more matching funds to help take down the Democrats in 2012).
The situation has to deteriorate much further, before it will ever improve.
If McCain wins, the economy in the US will continue to worsen, as Neocons and Friends, Inc, will have received a green light for more lootin’ of the taxpayer for bailin’ out the rich. The Great Depression could end up looking like a time of peace and prosperity by comparison.
Also, a McCain war rampage would ensure more global consolidation against the USA Empire. It could get so bad, that the US might not even be able to bring home the soldiers that are stationed at the numerous bases around the world. The troops will be cut off from the Imperialistic Mothership, and left stranded overseas. Unable to retreat to their homeland, many will either be assimilated, or slaughtered where they stand.
When these things come to pass, we will finally be on the threshold of a Second American Revolution.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
I found antiwar around the time of the Georgian aggression and I am so happy I did. I go there just to read your articles and they are wonderful. I’ve been a Nader supporter since I seen “An Unreasonable Man”. If I had known about him in 2000 and 2004 I would have voted for him(I didnt vote those years because I new the system was corrupt).
I support Nader because he is real and genuine, his life speaks for itself but I am under no illusions that anything will change in this country. Not without a revolution.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
I was going to vote for Barr (albeit tactically, as I prefer Baldwin, but I thought maybe Barr was going to make a bit of a splash on Election Day), but its clear neither Barr nor Baldwin are going to have any impact on the election (except maybe in Georgia). Since there’s no traditionally right-wing candidate with potential spoiler capability, I was at somewhat of a loss to decide for whom to vote. Then Nader called on McCain to stop lying about the U.S.S. Liberty incident. What can I say? I like his style, and so yesterday, I switched my vote to Ralph Nader. (I voted for Ron Paul in the primaries - I’m a Nader Republican).
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Justin -
I always appreciate your point of view.
I’m still flip flopping between Barr or Baldwin, and it’s all I can do not to write-in Ron Paul.
Deep down inside I’m starting to wonder if Lew Rockwell isn’t right about not voting.
Whatever happens tomorrow, and whatever the future may bring, I’m leaving the RON PAUL bumper sticker on my truck and I have planned to be buried in my RON PAUL 2008 tee shirt.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Hey, Justin FAGGOT Raimondo, I see that you had my original response to this thread erased, somehow. Was it because I questioned your reasons for voting for Ralph “the Commie, Faggot sympathizer” Nader? I can only suppose that those who agree with you on this thread are either FAGGOTS, Liberal-commies, or just plain dumb-downed couch potatoes. Nevertheless, my argument against your reasons for voting for Nader are valid in light of the Natural Law and the Divine Law. You are afraid of the TRUTH, so you will continue to wallow in perversion and influence the dumb-heads who agree with you; ehich just goes to show how rotten this nation is.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
After Ron Paul’s campaign fell apart, I was cast adrift, no longer knowing which third-party candidate to support (McBama was, of course, out of the question). Then, I read your 2004 endorsement of Nader, and I decided to give him a closer look. I discovered that his socialistic qualities are, truth be told, less socialistic and more anti-corporatist than any of the other candidates’, and he is the single candidate I would trust to keep us from going to war...again. In the past three months or so, I have become a Nader supporter. Now that you’ve endorsed Nader again, there is no question in my mind as to who I will be voting for tomorrow.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Justin,
Just wanted to make sure you were aware that Ron Paul is a certified write-in candidate in California. You can confirm this at the Sec of State website.
He is listed with Gail Lightfoot as VP.
Click to flag this comment as abusive