“The Antiwar Right Becomes the Anti-American Right”
At some point who cares what Michael Moore and the Hollywood idiots have to say about the war, the economy, and 9,000 other things. Lawrence Auster writes about the more interesting debate in American politics and that’s the one inside the “conservative/libertarian umbrella.”
This is the kind of leftist poison that a once-distinguished writer at National Review, Joseph Sobran, in a celebrated essay published in 1985, described as alienism: “a prejudice in favor of the alien, the marginal, the dispossessed, the eccentric, reaching an extreme in the attempt to ‘build a new society’ by destroying the basic institutions of the native.” But, in a further sad illustration of my thesis, Sobran, in addition to becoming an outspoken Israel hater in recent years, has turned against the most basic institution of America, of which he was once a foremost champion. Having spent his entire writing career as an indefatigable exponent and defender of the U.S. Constitution against its modern statist distortions, Sobran in 2002 came out as a Rothbardian libertarian anarchist, agreeing with his newly adopted mentor, the late Murray Rothbard, that it’s not the liberal perversions of the Constitution that are the problem, but the Constitution itself; that the state is “nothing but a criminal gang writ large”; and that the Framers of the U.S. Constitution meeting in Philadelphia in 1787 were engaged in a “coup d’état.”
So, just as former patriots on the right have become anti-Americans, and just as former Cold Warriors on the right have become apologists for Communism, a former leading constitutionalist on the right has become an enemy of the Constitution-indeed, of the very existence of government.
The key to the destructive mindset of the antiwar right, which I hope to explore in future articles, is that their ideas about politics are not the product of rational thought and a concern for the common good. Their ideas are, very simply, the product of burning anger, a sense of perpetual hurt and victimhood. And that is why they have become so much like the left.
Right on the money.
9 Responses to ““The Antiwar Right Becomes the Anti-American Right””
I’m curious, does Jerry Pournelle qualify as part of the anti-war=anti-American right?
Oh, and the Framers arguably did launch a coup d’etat. Two, actually, both against lousy governments. As an American, especially, I’m surprised the author considers coups d’etat to be automatically immoral.
I have always wondered why Americans found anti-imperial and guerrilla movements so difficult to accept.
“that the state is “nothing but a criminal gang writ large”; ”
If Pournelle is, then Heinlein is too. But if they are criminals, they’re really clumsy ones, aren’t they?
“But, in a further sad illustration of my thesis, the prowar right, in addition to becoming outspoken France haters in recent years…”
“The key to the destructive mindset of the prowar right…is that their ideas about politics are not the product of rational thought, but of a reliance on the Communist belief that the ‘common good’ outweighs both morality and the good of the individual. Their ideas are, very simply, the product of a passionate obsession with statism, an unprovable sense of moral superiority and a refusal to believe *our* party’s ‘leaders’ could possibly make mistakes. And that is why they have become so much like the left.
“Their ideas are also, very simply, the product of a mindset that thinks terms like ‘right’ and ‘left’ actually have any objective meaning.”
Thank you, PTB, for helping me realize why Lawrence Aster isn’t worth two seconds of my time.
I agree wholeheartedly about Heinlein, which was the point I was going for. I dislike seeing anyone argue that anti-war=anti-American, regardless of their target.
Sobran is available off the drudgereport and is well worth reading. Auster’s characterization is way off the mark. Anyone who crosses AIRPAC is demonized.
But, on the other hand, sometimes people who are anti-war are, indeed, anti-American.
PunchTheBag wrote:
“Lawrence Auster writes about the more interesting debate in American politics and that’s the one inside the “conservative/libertarian umbrella.”
I’m under the impression that most of the anti-war sentiment on the right comes not from libertarians, who are divided on the issue, but from paleo-cons, who are convinced that the neo-cons have hijacked the White House.
Arguments inside the conservative umbrella are always more interesting and for several reasons. The first is that the concept of truth is respected by all participants. The second is that name calling, motive discernment, demonizing is absent-it takes too long to develop and does not serve truth.
This person has clearly never been in a “paleo vs. neo” debate or traditionalist vs. libertarian debate. Name calling, motive discernment,and demonizing all play a big role all too frequently.