I would ask what the writers over at TPM are smoking, but even a stoner wouldn’t be so “out of it” as to actually make the claim that the Christian Right is behind the libertarian movement.
Besides, weed is banned by the federal government, because they care about us and want what’s best for us, so we must comply with whatever decrees they issue. To disobey would be unthinkable.
The story, featuring a large photo of Michelle Bachmann, attempts to pull a feat equivalent to a magician pulling an elephant out of a hat he doesn’t even have in his hand, claiming that libertarianism is really just a mask behind which the Christian Right is secretly trying to hide.
Though the article is supposed to be about libertarianism, the actual beliefs are never mentioned. Instead, they spend the entire column discussing the ideological beliefs of what they refer to as “Con-Con,” or constitutional conservatism.
What Con-Con most often seems to connote beyond an uncompromising attitude on specific issues is the belief that strict limitations on the size, scope and cost of government are eternally correct for this country, regardless of public opinion or circumstances. Thus violations of this “constitutional” order are eternally illegitimate, no matter what the Supreme Court says or who has won the last election.
More commonly, Con-Cons reinforce this idea of a semi-divine constitutional order by endowing it with — quite literally — divine origins. This is why David Barton’s largely discredited “Christian Nation” revisionist histories of the Founders remain so highly influential in conservative circles, and why Barton himself is welcome company in the camps of Con-Con pols ranging from Cruz and Bachmann to Rick Perry and Mike Huckabee. This is why virtually all Con-Cons conflate the Constitution with the Declaration of Independence, which enabled them to sneak both Natural and Divine Law (including most conspicuously a pre-natal Right to Life) into the nation’s organic governing structure.
Pardon me for asking, but what does any of this have to do with libertarianism?
Unable to directly confront libertarian beliefs, the writer uses it to reveal their horror at the idea that people might actually believe in the right of the unborn to live, just as they were. They’re also apparently terrified of business owners who have the audacity to think they have the right to choose their own customers.
How dare they be so insubordinate!
Know thy place, citizen! Your rights must be decided by a group of nine modern day ephors in black robes who live thousands of miles away. We took a vote, and we don’t like what you’re doing. Our side managed to successfully con and dupe more people into voting for us, so there! We have the right to use violence against you because the sheeple have spoken!
Read the article yourself. You’ll discover what I did in about five seconds. When you read an article attempting to discuss libertarianism, only to see Rick Perry and Mike Huckabee brought into the discussion, you know something is terribly, terribly wrong.
Just like the NYT Magazine writer who penned the article this column inspired, the TPD writer obviously possess no understanding whatsoever as to what libertarianism is or what it teaches. Their knowledge of the political ideology consists of reading only the most trendy sources and feigning outrage at anyone who does not fall within the limited sphere of approved thoughts by our wise overlords.
To them, it is a crypto-ideology that has to remain an ideological wing of a political party. No matter what it teaches, it must adhere to the premise that we must gain permission from the federal government to consume products.
Despite disagreeing with her on many issues, one has to have a bit of sympathy for Michelle Bachmann, a typical mainstream Republican conservative who took heavy flak for the mere crime of reading about, though not necessarily accepting, topics like the Austrian Theory of the Business Cycle in books such as Meltdown.
The nerve of the woman! To read material not on the approved list of respectable literature! Before you know it, millions of others might question the irrefutable wisdom and fatherly guidance of the Federal Reserve.
Clearly this is due to the insidious actions of the Christian Right.
Nowhere mentioned is Lew Rockwell, Murray Rothbard, Tom Woods, William Grigg, Walter Block, Robert Murphy, Hans Hoppe, or the innumerable other libertarians who provide their analysis of economics, foreign policy, culture, the federal government, and police brutality. Nowhere in the article are ideas such as the Non-Aggression Principle or the belief in property rights.
No, libertarianism is simply a subterfuge for the Christian Right to maintain some semblance of power in the political realm.
Which for anyone who understands libertarianism knows is a joke. Aside from all the areas where the Christian Right displays the very nationalistic tendencies libertarianism opposes, a libertarian politician is, other than the very rare exception, a contradiction in terms.
Is it too much to assume intellectual laziness or arrogance led to this conclusion? Did this writer ever bother to try Googling “libertarian Christian”? The first site to come up isn’t Rand Paul’s or Bachmann’s. It’s libertarianchristians.com. The author,Norman Horn, is anti-war, anti-War on Drugs, anti-NDAA, pro-drug legalizing, and anti-torture.
Then there is libertarian Christian Laurence Vance, whose blog posts and columns seethe with contempt for the very war-mongering, Reich Wing Christians this writer claims is running the libertarian movement.
Memo to TPM: Libertarianism doesn’t belong to the Christian Right. It doesn’t belong to the Progressive Left. It doesn’t belong to any political party. It only belongs to those who adhere to the Non-Aggression Principle. People may practice it when it is convenient or benefits them, but that does not make them a libertarian.
Speaking strictly as a true libertarian (and Christian), I must inform you that you misunderstand our intentions.
We’re not here to get “our people” elected to the government. We don’t care what the Supreme Court, the Congress, or the president has to say. We’re not interested in reforming an institution that relies on coercion and aggression in order to function.
The state is a criminal organization. We’re here to abolish it.