DGH – Do you have an opinon on Chronicles Magazine?

[…]Evangelicals and the Betrayal of American Conservatism – ReformedForum.org[…]…

[…]Evangelicals and the Betrayal of American Conservatism – ReformedForum.org[…]…

[…]Evangelicals and the Betrayal of American Conservatism – ReformedForum.org[…]…

It is obvious that you and I have serious differences of opinion on the definition of “classical liberal.” Again, in order to understand “the Ron Paulian” version of classical liberalism, you need to read how Mises himself defined it. I will point you to another free book: http://mises.org/resources/1086/Liberalism-In-the-Classical-Tradition

Your preference for the Hamiltonian way speaks volumes about how far apart the two of us really are. I accept that. But I still do not think you’re being fair with the Austrian school positions (“the rot of Dr Paul’s policy ideas” …really?), especially if you have read as much from the Austrian school (primary sources?) as you claim. Nevertheless, to respond to your question on the action against the Barbary pirates, it seems the situation is not as cut-and-dried as you would like to believe. As I stated in my initial response, unfortunately, I do not have the time to give the response I would like to give (in my own words). So I will humbly point you to someone who has ably dealt with your presidential war powers arguments: http://www.tomwoods.com/warpowers/

I apologize for the lack of a more personalized rejoinder, David. Admittedly, I don’t like it when others do to me what I am doing here to you—posting links and saying, “Here, watch this! …and read this…and this…and this!” But unlike the Rolling Stones, I must lament that “time ain’t on my side.”

Good weekend to you & a blessed Lord’s Day.
-LB

Touche! But Ron Paul’s “on the record” comments regarding the U.S. Military do not add up to “maintaining the best and most capable fighting force in the world.” Anti-war must be defined, Lane. As far as I am concerned most candidates ––– and citizens ––– are anti-war. The difference is whether war is ever an option in your ideological formulations. What I mean is, regardless of threats and the brutality of armies on the march, one can also find what appears to be a reasonable reason “not to defend oneself and go to war”. Our history is chalked full with that kind of ordure.

I would greatly disagree that Ron Paul is a paradigm of classical liberal thinking, regarding U.S. Military capability. They have more in common with the absurd positions of George McGovern than conservative ––– or classical liberal ––– traditions. They are pre-World War II formulations, a world we do not live in anymore; nor shall live in again in the foreseeable future. Clearly, the isolationism of the right was want to prevent or correct the march of fascism in the 1930s into World War II. We call the left to intellectual honesty, to own their policies ––– and we must do the same as classical liberals.

I have read much of the Austrian school on war ––– and economics. I have also read widely of General Van Clausewitz and military history. And that is why I believe, excluding his domestic policy opinions, Dr Ron Paul is more than a thousand miles out to lunch. I think I explained my position quite clearly. The default position of classical liberalism is history and the confines of the “constrained vision”. Just as nation building and trying to plant democracies in cultures which do not have the presuppositions necessary for classical liberal thinking, it is equally in opposition to the “constrained vistion” (Dr Thomas Sowell) to plan U.S. Military capabilities and policy on the world Dr Ron Paul sees. As I said, Dr Paul’s McGovern type foreign policy vastitude is wholly dependent on human beings ––– around the world ––– not acting like human beings. It also assumes the lessons of the 20th century, particularly World War II, will not happen again if we simply “do not interfere”. I would argue quite pointedly that we have indeed tried this and it has not worked. We still were pulled into war. Granted, the United States is way to involved in the world; that however, does not mean we need to accept the rot of Dr Paul’s policy ideas.

Mr Jefferson’s quote is more than wise ––– though I am more privy to the views of Hamilton with a few adjustments. Call me a classically liberal, Hamiltonian libertarian. Sounds odd, not so much when the record is cleared of half cocked reflections 50 years after Hamilton died. Back to the point at hand: Mr Jefferson’s quote sees no contradiction in my mind in his violent thrust into Tripoli ––– completely in fidelity with Article II, Section II, of the U.S. Constitution, he helped compose. Was that not an entanglement? But even if we go another way, U.S. Military Policy should be based on Article II, Section II, not Jefferson or Hamiltonian quotes….They are a context ––– wise indeed, but they are not U.S. law.

Definitions, my good brother, Lane….They are needed.

-djbeilstein

1) Ron Paul is not an isolationist. He is an anti-interventionist. There is a difference. The oft-quoted line from Thomas Jefferson applies: “Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations—entangling alliances with none.”

2) I am perplexed that anyone who purports to understand Ron Paul’s foreign policy views could call them absurd. To disagree with them is one thing, but to say that they are disconnected from history is another. Ron Paul is a disciple of Misesian classical liberalism, which is decidedly anti-war but pro-strong national defense. Therefore he and I would agree with you on maintaining the best and most capable fighting force in the world. If you don’t believe that, look up the video from his recent appearance “in the center seat” on Fox News. In that interview he is actually given ample time to explain his views, an opportunity that rarely presents itself in this day and age. I would also encourage you to read some of the historians of the Austrian school on war. A good place to start is John Denson’s book, “A Century of War,” which shows the inextricable ties of the welfare state to the warfare state. That book is available for free here: http://mises.org/resources/2674/Century-of-War-A

Grace & Peace,
LB

The problem I do see with some of D.G. Hart’s views is his comments about not understanding how many conservatives can be in favor of a small government, but big military. This is seen as oxymoronic in Dr Hart’s opinion. The problem is ––– read William F Buckley Jr ––– true conservatives have never been for a small government, but a limited government forcibly confined to its enumerated powers. And no, they are not the same thing! Given the economic revenues and resources the American economic system can –– and did produce –– untethered from an intrusive, nanny-state socialistic system, there is ample wealth for a military that in self defense can fight and win two major wars at once. This is simply wise. The Ron Paulians suffer in a different way from Dr Thomas Sowell’s “constrained vision” perspective which is a default position of all true conservatism. In other words, an isolationist, Ron Paulian perspective expects the world to operate in major and minor degrees differently than it has for thousands of years. This seems a different ––– but equally ––– idealist position characteristic of leftist sensibilities, not conservative ones.

I have no love for the religious right or her candidates. But I also don’t see much of Dr Hart’s promotion of a Ron Paulian political philosophy as an antipode and antidote to big government statism. Both views seem to me to be radically reductionist in nature, untethered from human nature and its history this side of glory. While I certainly agree with William F Buckley, Jr and American Conservatism’s lambasting of American military involvement all over the world, I simply cannot slide over to the absurdity of Ron Paul’s foreign policy views.

While Dr Hart might see small government, big military, as contradictory –– then I must argue the U.S. Constitution is in contradiction for it gives enormous power to the Presidency, especially in regards to the military, Article II, Section II. Add to this Thomas Jefferson’s actions in Tripoli in the Barbary Shores Wars, which was an undeclared war, and was perfectly lawful under Article II, Section II. And Thomas Jefferson helped write it, so he would know. Where the Federal Government is severely limited Constitutionally, is its intrusion into American civil, private life. And this where conservative, i.e., classical liberals muscle needs to be put to work the most.

A good conservative is always libertarian, especially in matters economic, social. See Fredhach Hayek. Milton Friedman argued these things for his entire professional life. But libertarians in the Ron Paulian mode are not conservative in terms of foreign policy principals, but more McGovernite than anything. I would hasten to call this conservative or libertarian. The McGovern foreign policy construct would have left America impotent in the face of Japanese Imperialism, Nazism, which swept over the world and showed its ugly head first, in the Spanish Civil War.

Matters of citizenship are also of key importance which Hayek wrote of, and this is where many cultural libertarians fall short. Personal autonomy becomes the great idol of many another cultural libertarians. and so, their inability to take a stand on any moral issue fundamentally underwhelms the means to make a philosophical case for “free minds, free markets, other than functionality, which is limited in effect. We wouldn’t be in debt trillions of dollars if pure functionalism or practicality were of high value to the average voter. The recent “Arab Spring” is evidence –– as is history in general –– that “free minds, free markets”, doesn’t spring just any ideas, principals, or philosophies. Personal autonomy is important to be sure –– but so isn’t citizenship and responsibility; that requires fundamental structures based on Natural Law. The jumping of point would be certain agreed upon dictates established through local communities and such.

Dr Hart is wise to be critical of what pop conservatives call “American Exceptionalism” –– yet the “modest republic” model often praised from Paleo-Conservatives would fair badly in a world of rising threats and global armies, made strong, not in numbers any longer, but in the ability to place lethal force in few weapons.While America could stand to remove itself from much military involvement in the world, we still should retain the best and most capable fighting force the world has ever seen. What has really got Dr Hart screaming –– and I agree –– is policy; how the military is used, not size. Big military budgets has not bankrupted America. Entitlement spending has.

Cheers,
djbeilstein

Maybe I’m misunderstanding you here, but I’m not clear on your suggestion that Evangelical conservatives should be willing to go for part solutions to the abortion/pro-life problem by supporting things like banning partial-birth abortions or laws at the state level. Haven’t these things been attempted (yes) and have been either struck down by Federal or State courts or vetoed by the executive base on R v. W.. Isn’t the solution of sending this issue back to the states to be found only in Roe v. Wade being overturned? Until then it remains the constitutional trump card. AS you know overturning R v.W wouldn’t outlaw abortion but only put us back to that status-quo of 1973 allowing the various states to decide the issue. Wasn’t it the action of a liberal Supreme Court that set the table for this odd mix of civil law and evangelicalism as the Right’s response (not to affirm it).

I agree with your desire to remove the “biblical” arguments from this issue as the pro-life position can be more effectively argued from natural law and our constitution. But how can there be, at this juncture, a part solution to be sought by pro-lifers? It seems that the diagnosis of the problem as the “all or nothing” mentality of evangelicals is wanting in that there are no partial solutions to be had as long as R v. W remains the constitutional backstop for any incremental remedies. That removed, the democratic/legislative process would again kick in with varying legislative approaches in the states.

cheers…

“The Strategy of Campaigning: Lessons from Ronald Reagan and Boris Yeltsin,” by Bueno de Mesquita et al., contains a helpful study of the evolution of Reagan’s strategies in the elections of 1968, 1976 and 1980, including his plan to bring Southern evangelicals to his side. It’s a very interesting read–highly recommended.

http://www.amazon.com/Strategy-Campaigning-Lessons-Ronald-Yeltsin/dp/0472116274