Monday, November 19, 2007

Holy Guacamole, Batman!

I see the point of Manata’s original post has been derailed by another raving, ranting Ron Paul supporter—is there any other kind?—who's imputing all sorts of imaginary positions to me. I want to thank Jason and Manata for stepping into the breach.

Since this anonymous critic doesn’t bother to document his allegations or interact with my detailed argumentation, his complaints don’t merit much of a response. He’s simply using Manata’s post as a pretext to vent about the usual roster of villains in the paleocon/paleolibertarian morality play.

It’s like a Batman comic book. Ron Paul is Bruce Wayne to the Zionist Penguin, Riddler, Joker, Two-Face, or Mr. Freeze. Wham! Bam! Ka-pow!

Why is it that Ron Paul so many supporters seem to be a bunch of clones? They use the same arguments, same illustrations, same huffy-puffy attitude, same conspiratorial rhetoric. Pity so many of them can’t think for themselves.

For the record:

1. I've never said the Iraq war was the right thing to do, just that it was a reasonable thing to do giving the intelligence briefings that Bush was receiving at the time. Even if Bush made the wrong call on Iraq, at least he was prepared to make a tough call—unlike Clinton.

In hindsight, the Iraq war may well have been a miscalculation. Of course, I see my anonymous critic ignores the recent post in which a suggestive connection is drawn between Iraq, Al-Qaida, and the anthrax attack.

2. I've never said I thought the sanctions were a good idea. I merely pointed out that those who oppose the present war previously opposed the sanctions. So they didn't like the alternative of the status quo ante either.

Personally, I'm not a big fan of sanctions. I think they're generally ineffectual and target the wrong segment of society. We need to hit the policy-makers, not the grunts.

I also pointed out that the sanctions were UN sanctions, not US sanctions.

3. Again, I've never said that we should subsidize dictators. I generally oppose foreign aid.

I do think the Cold War containment policy was necessary. To say I favor the general principle of an “interventionist” foreign policy does not commit me to any specific action our foreign policymakers took in the past. But since my anonymous critic is incapable of exercising rational discrimination, he naturally projects his own intellectual failings onto his opponents as well.

And, as I've explained before, there's nothing at all inconsistent about supporting those who support you, and then opposing them when they turn against. That's the nature of shifting military alliances.

4. I'm not a neocon. I'm a theocon. I think the neoncon vision is overly optimistic. Of course, the critic is obviously a paleocon or paleolibertarian (e.g., Buchanan, Ron Paul). One doesn't need to be a neocon to oppose the bunker mentality of Buchanan or Ron Paul. And I disapprove of the anti-Semitic sentiment that emanates from paleocon or paleolibertarian quarters.

5. Yes, I'd support an air strike on Iran's WMD program. So what?

6. "My point in posting is that I think it's hypocritical for Christians to promote life at home and not abroad."

Of course, this is just as simple-minded as those who claim that it's inconsistent to oppose abortion and also support capital punishment.

7. "I recommend you read Imperial Hubris by Michael Scheurer, the head of the Bin Laden unit in the CIA for years (just one book among many). "

Given that Scheurer served under Clinton, which queued us up for 9/11, you could hardly have a finer example of a failed foreign policy.

MERKUR SAID:

"The ticking time bomb scenario - as has been pointed out repeatedly - also allows for the torture of innocents, since it's a utilitarian argument."

Since I'm not a utilitarian, I wouldn't torture innocents in a ticking timebomb scenario. The reason I asked Patrick to post the Frame material a while back is to show that ethical decision-making requires more than one criterion.

I'm beginning to wonder what Ron Paul supporters will do when their candidate loses his bid for the GOP nomination—move to Canada?

It’s starting to resemble a personality cult or Doomsday cult. They remind me of fans who followed Harold Camping (1994?) over the cliff, as well as fans who followed Gary North (Y2K) over the cliff. They also remind me of the LaRouchies. Same combination of nail-biting paranoia wedded to adolescent hero worship.

7 comments:

  1. 1. I never said you thought the sanctions were a good idea. What I said was that you were a proponent of our foreign policy by supporting people who do support such things. Hence you are complicit (as you say of the Amish) in those very things.

    2. I also pointed out that the U.S. was complicit and enforced the U.N. sanctions.

    3. Excellent rebuttal to Mike Scheurer.

    You said, "3. Again, I've never said that we should subsidize dictators. I generally oppose foreign aid."

    Again, I never said that you did *say* this. What I said was that you support those who do.


    You said, "Of course, this is just as simple-minded as those who claim that it's inconsistent to oppose abortion and also support capital punishment."

    Wrong. This is disanalogous due to people actually deserving capital punishment. Could you be any more simple-minded?

    You said, "5. Yes, I'd support an air strike on Iran's WMD program. So what?"

    Then you'll create further complications that require further interventions and further alienate us from the rest of the world's population.

    You said, "4. I'm not a neocon. I'm a theocon. I think the neoncon vision is overly optimistic. Of course, the critic is obviously a paleocon or paleolibertarian (e.g., Buchanan, Ron Paul). One doesn't need to be a neocon to oppose the bunker mentality of Buchanan or Ron Paul. And I disapprove of the anti-Semitic sentiment that emanates from paleocon or paleolibertarian quarters."

    Oh so requiring people to stand on their own two feet is anti-Semitic. There are Israelis who actually support my position. Quite simple-minded, batman. Nevertheless, I didn't refer to *you* as a neocon.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Am I the only one amused that an isolationist is concerned we might be further alienated from the rest of the world?

    ReplyDelete
  3. "another raving, ranting Ron Paul supporter-is there any other kind?"

    Yes. Of course there is another kind. They just tend to be less vocal.

    The kind you are thinking of are the kind that get their talking points from Lew Rockwell, Prison Planet, and similar anti-government web sites, while condemning as mindless drones folks who get their talking points from Fox News.

    -Turretinfan

    ReplyDelete
  4. Turretinfan said...

    Yes. Of course there is another kind. They just tend to be less vocal.

    The kind you are thinking of are the kind that get their talking points from Lew Rockwell, Prison Planet, and similar anti-government web sites, while condemning as mindless drones folks who get their talking points from Fox News.

    -Turretinfan

    ********************

    I agree with you that there are some sober, intelligent Ron Paul fans out there. But they're not the ones who show up at my blog or the combox of some other blogs I've occasionally frequented. So you're correct on both points. The nutters aren't doing their candidate any favors.

    ReplyDelete
  5. ANONYMOUS SAID:

    “I never said you thought the sanctions were a good idea. What I said was that you were a proponent of our foreign policy by supporting people who do support such things. Hence you are complicit (as you say of the Amish) in those very things…Again, I never said that you did *say* this. What I said was that you support those who do.”

    i) If you want to play guilt-by-association, that’s a two-way street. Before he ran for the GOP nomination, Ron Paul was once the Libertarian Party's presidential candidate. Here are some of the items of the Libertarian Party platform:

    ***QUOTE***

    We oppose any abridgment of the freedom of speech through government censorship, regulation or control of communications media, including, but not limited to, laws concerning: _a) Obscenity, including "pornography", as we hold this to be an abridgment of liberty of expression.

    We oppose any government efforts to ban or restrict the use of tear gas, "mace" or other self-protection devices. We further oppose all attempts to ban weapons or ammunition on the grounds that they are risky or unsafe. We favor the repeal of laws banning the concealment of weapons or prohibiting pocket weapons. We also oppose the banning of inexpensive handguns ("Saturday night specials") and semi-automatic or so-called assault weapons and their magazines or feeding devices.

    Recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that people can hold good-faith views on both sides, we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration.

    Consenting adults should be free to choose their own sexual practices and personal relationships. Government does not have legitimate authority to define or license personal relationships. Sexuality or gender should have no impact on the rights of individuals.

    Repeal the federal Defense of Marriage Act and state laws and amendments defining marriage. Oppose any new laws or Constitutional amendments defining terms for personal, private relationships.

    Repeal any state or federal laws denying same-sex partners rights enjoyed by others, such as adoption of children and spousal immigration. End the Defense Department practice of discharging armed forces personnel for sexual orientation. Upgrade all less-than-honorable discharges previously assigned solely for such reasons to honorable status, and delete related information from military personnel files. Repeal all laws discriminating by gender, such as protective labor laws and marriage, divorce, and custody laws which deny the full rights of each individual.

    http://www.lp.org/issues/platform_all.shtml

    ***END-QUOTE***

    So, by your logic, Ron Paul is complicit in abortion, sodomy, bestiality, child pornography, homosexual adoption, homosexual marriage, gun-related homicides, &c.

    And it won’t do for you to say that he’s personally opposed to this and that, for as the Libertarian Party’s candidate, he was representing the interests of all the party members—whether anarchist libertarians, minarchist libertarians, consequentialist libertarians, deontological libertarians, left-libertarians and right-libertarians.

    ii) However, for those of us who, unlike you, can keep more than one idea in our head at a time, it’s actually possible to support a policy for its overall benefits without offering a blanket endorsement for every particular.

    “Wrong. This is disanalogous due to people actually deserving capital punishment. Could you be any more simple-minded?”

    Wrong. Your disanalogy is disanalogous since our judicial system also (for the most part unwittingly) executes innocent convicts. Could you be any more simple-minded?

    “Then you'll create further complications that require further interventions.”

    Yes, we live in a complicated world. We must confront moral and geostrategic complications.

    The law of unintended consequences applies equally to interventionism and non-interventionism. Each position generates unforeseen complications.

    There are two kinds of people in the world: ankle-biters and problem-solvers. The ankle-biters like you whine, bitch, and complain about the failures of the problem-solvers.

    I, by contrast, am prepared to cut the problem-solvers some slack if they were taking reasonable precautions to keep us safe, even if they didn’t have a crystal ball and, as a result, made some miscalculations along the way.

    “And further alienate us from the rest of the world's population.”

    I take it that you’re a schoolgirl who wore the wrong color dress to the prom and, as a result, have never been able to live down the public humiliation of having people stare at you, giggle, point fingers, and say mean things.

    Most of “the world’s population” is not a player in the “war on terror.” They sit on the sidelines and root for the winner. I couldn’t care less what the spectators think.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Before he ran for the Libertarian presidential nom, he was a GOP rep. Nevertheless, I agree with Dr. Paul at the *federal* level. And if he is consistent with strict constructionism, then states themselves would be able to have established religions. Unfortunately for your rebuttal, I have yet to decide if I will vote for Dr. Paul.


    Steve said, "I take it that you’re a schoolgirl who wore the wrong color dress to the prom and, as a result, have never been able to live down the public humiliation of having people stare at you, giggle, point fingers, and say mean things."

    Good, Steve. Real good…


    I’ll confess, though, I should have never made the charge I did against you. So, in all seriousness, I apologize for any misrepresentation on my part.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Steve, do you like Kant?
    You should see this guys blog!!

    www.roestudios.com/b-log

    I'd love to see your comments up there.

    Peace

    ReplyDelete