Establishment Conservatism and the Rise of Libertarians

With Rand Paul's win in the Kentucky primary and the Tea Party's connection to libertarianism, there's been recent discussion on non-establishment conservatism. Distinguishing between competing right-leaning philosophies isn't a trivial exercise and I avoid it as to shirk ideological loyalty. Perhaps the most rigorous defense of radical conservatism comes from Alternative Right, by way of founding editor Richard Spencer. Here's his article on Rand Paul's win:

I would have voted for him if I lived in the Blue Grass state. Paul's victory is also indicative of the power of the Tea Party movement, which originated with his father's 2008 presidential campaign but has taken on a life of its own.

I first heard about Ron Paul in late 2007, as his iconoclastic views found favor amongst some atheist commentators. But I had little impetus to investigate him further after learning of Dr. Paul's association with 9/11 truthers. Such a despondent view of the American government, no matter how flawed or expansive it may be, is beyond the realm of reasonable discourse.

In his major TV spots, Rand promised not to close Gitmo, stated (albeit vaguely) that "fighting back" was the proper response to 9/11, and flashed a lot of images of Military-Industrial-Complex fighter planes soaring through the sky. Though I thought this kind of stuff was on the wane, the GWOT, "standing tall against Islam," and even Christian Zionism still remain integral parts of the identity politics of Red-State Christian white people.

Here Spencer admonishes the supposed memes of establishment conservatism. Reactionary conservatives like Spencer, with whom I undoubtedly share many viewpoints, believe opposition to militaristic initiatives is a laudably radical sentiment. Because, ya know, everyone loves going to war. Of course, any rational individual considers aggressive military action an undesirable alternative, but albeit, one that's occasionally necessary. This necessity stipulation doesn't apply to naive democracy exportation or nation building, but rather situations where defensive action is warranted.

In doing so, Spencer seems to belittle the "standing tall" stance against Islam and presumably excoriates the military efforts in Afghanistan. But only an abject reductionist could dismiss the collective melancholy following 9/11 as insignificant as to warrant a military response. We needed a swift and decisive reaction to moderate our collective sorrow. Someone attacks us, we attack back. Further, this position assumes Islam presents no imminent challenge to the West, a notion I approach with much credulity. As for Iraq, I'm with Spencer.

In general, America does not exist as the adjudicator of the world's conflicts or the globe's benevolent guardian angel. We must hold our citizens' rights and desires as the preeminent value; though in highly specific circumstances, we can justifiably veer from this principle. Quick digression on Israel and the Muslim problem: By far the best solution has Israel moving to South America or Africa and Western countries disallowing all Muslim immigration.

Spencer continues by alluding to a seemingly leftist concoction deemed the "Military-Industrial-Complex", perhaps a reactionary parallel to the prison-industry-complex. Here, Spencer does point to an aspect of government profligacy as we likely spend too much on defense. Though, quite simply, Hailburton and Lockheed provide a countless number of jobs. While this isn't sufficient for justifying the high expenditures, it surely undermines the claim that military spending is entirely wasteful. Second, the military invests heavily in research and development of technologies with civilian benefits. One can't underestimate the impact military driven research has for our continuing technological progress. Third, owing to his economic reductionism, Spencer overlooks the nationalistic spirit derived from these admittedly overwrought military memes. The military remains the only decidedly conservative and patriotic American institution, despite the left's attempts at undermining them through multicult and feminist infiltrations. Military strength and defense robustness constitute palatable representations of national strength. The pride engendered by images of fighter planes and austere Marines are integral to our national consciousness.

As for Dr. Paul and Mr. Spencer's libertarianism, I'm a staunch proponent of limited government. But amongst the more heterodox libertarians, abolishment of the federal tax, dissolving the multicult/fem racketeering business, defense of private industry and personal choice, and opposition to welfare and universal healthcare, don't suffice. In this article, Spencer mentions closing Gitmo as an issue of primary importance. I can't imagine Mr. Spencer sympathizes with suspected terrorists (though Muslim apologetics are quite common amongst the libertarian commentariat); instead, Mr. Spencer likely considers this a harbinger of government imposition on our civil liberties. I understand the general argument, though for me personally, I would gladly relinquish some of my civil liberties if it means criminals, illegal immigrants, and suspected terrorists are more thoroughly investigated. Much of this rhetoric appeals to a slippery slope, paranoid argument that I simply don't foresee coming to fruition. While liberty remains an undoubtedly sacred facet of our society, we must make concessions for that freedom. I'm also wary of how this squares with immigration restriction, as many libertarians advocate open borders. Some comments from VFR:

Pure libertarianism sees the state as the first, last, and only source of evil in the world. If we as a society have a problem with a certain group (Muslims, Mexicans, blacks, etc), it's obviously the state riling them up. .

There are many writers who promulgate the idea that our government, not Islam or Mexican irredentism, is the real threat. But they're making a fundamental mistake. And our govenrment is reformable by us, difficult as that may be, whereas Islam and foreign irredentism are not under our control.

On the issue of economics, I obviously agree with many free market ideals, but I don't espouse the anarcho-capitalism envisioned by some utopic libertarians. We need public alternatives for policing, education, transportation, etc. Of course, we also need private robustness and a limited amount of regulation only where necessary, such as for issues of safety. The free market is an assuredly powerful, self-correcting method for economic vitality, but not an omnipotent one.

In my opinion, foundational and Constitutional conservative movements support limited government, but still harbor traditional American values, such as a strong military, glorification of US aggression, denunciation of Muslims and other aggressive foreigners, and little of this overly pessimistic view of government. These movements view America as a fluid democracy defined by its people, not as an ultimately doomed statist entity.