The War Faction
Less than thirty days before the Iowa Caucus, it appears that we are finally achieving some sort of clarity in the race for the Republican presidential nomination. The contours of a real three-candidate contest are finally begining to emerge, with Newt Gingrich as the conservative insurgent, Mitt Romney as the Wall Street Establishment candidate, and Ron Paul in his now-familiar role as libertarian gadfly. From where I sit, Ron Paul can’t win the nomination and Mitt Romney can’t beat Barack Obama, but Gingrich could do both; and that should give pause to anyone who cares about avoiding what could be an unimaginable conflagration in the Middle East sometime in mid to late 2013.
Just today, Gingrich pledged to nominate former US ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton to the post of Secretary of State if he becomes President. Bolton has long been one of the chief advocates for global, unilateral, and pre-emptive US military intervention and occupation. He was of course a cheerleader for the US invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq and has opposed American withdrawal from those countries. He celebrated the Israeli siege of Gaza and has long advocated launching a pre-emptive war against Iran. Most recently, Bolton has suggested that only having President Obama in the White House makes American intervention in Syria unwise. With Obama gone and, say, President Gingrich in office, Bolton’s Syrian assessment would presumably change. One of Bolton’s biggest boosters and confidants in the Neoconservative intelligentsia is Max Boot, who in separate columns this week has demanded two new pre-emptive American wars, one against Syria and another against Iran.
Both Bolton and Boot predictably deploy the Hitler analogy whenever they talk about Iran. Bolton, for instance, has said, “If the choice is them continuing [towards a nuclear bomb] or the use of force, I think you’re at a Hitler marching into the Rhineland point … We’re still in 1936, but not for long.” In an article linked above, Boot writes, “After the failure to stop Hitler and Bin Laden, among others, Westerners were said to have suffered a ‘failure of imagination.’ We are suffering that same failure today as we fail to face up to the growing threat from the Islamic Republic.” Both Bolton and Boot deployed the same analogy nine years ago in the run-up to our unprovoked war against Iraq. Their argument is always based on the supposed irrationality and apocalypticism of their targeted regimes, whether Hussein’s Iraq or Ahmadinejad’s Iran. But those repeated invocations of Hitler and 1936 by Bolton and Boot themselves represent a kind of irrational, apocalyptic thinking. Moreover, their views fit very neatly into the irrational and apocalyptic worldview of that most important element in the Republican Party base: Evangelical Christians. It is that faction that gives the views of Bolton and Boot credence, that endorses their insistence that Israel is the only vital US interest in the Middle East, and that drives otherwise sophisticated and intelligent people to contemplate igniting a conflict the outcome of which we can only imagine.
Of course, the views of Bolton and Boot are, let’s admit, already the views of Newt Gingrich, right down to the Hitler analogy. Gingrich has recently said, “It’s like the 1930s. The Iranian regime is dedicated to creating a second Holocaust, in terms of wanting to annihilate Israel.” And in debate after debate, he has pledged to take unilateral military action against Iran, beginning with a bombing campaign aimed at overturning the regime. So, as the campaign for the Republican nomination clarifies, let’s be clear about one other thing: If Newt Gingrich is elected President, and presuming it hasn’t already happened, the United States will deliberately initiate, without provocation, a pre-emptive war against the Islamic Republic of Iran. And we will reap the whirlwind.
Like this:
Comments are closed.
Ron Paul can still win while losing to Obama. That might, in fact, be the best outcome.
Ron Paul can still win while losing to Obama. That might, in fact, be the best outcome.
If Ron Paul wins the GOP nomination, then I think he’s got a good shot to beat Obama. In other words, I think it’s harder for him to the get the nomination in the first place, then to beat Obama in a 2-pesron GOP-Democratic faceoff. From a foreign policy perspective, wouldn’t that instead be the best outcome?
Nate,
I don’t think Ron Paul winning while be a good outcome. If he was nominated, I fear all we will hear are his economic policies, polices which are as Satanic as they come (Ayn Rand selfishness, the kind which LaVey said is his ideology!).
You are doubtless correct, and I like the way you tie the terrible heresies of Protestant Fundamentalism to the turning of America into the true Antichrist that it would inexorably become if this ruthless, fanatical and now neo-fascist party were allowed back into power:
their views fit very neatly into the irrational and apocalyptic worldview of that most important element in the Republican Party base: Evangelical Christians.
As Newman strongly suggests, all politics are inevitably rooted in the theological positions that define whatever soteriology human temperaments incline toward and against.
American Catholics are making a fundamental mistake–the kind that would eventually create schism with Rome–by aligning themselves with the very heretics who loathe orthodox Christian theology.
I have no intention of voting for Ron Paul or anyone of his ideology at any level of government. My faith, spiritual reflection and prayer life lead me fully away from his politics and the politics of libertarianism.
That some Catholics have travelled a different course has resulted in certain ideas germinating and blooming within the libertarian movement, watered by Catholic principles. Libertarianism might naturally be (and in the past, was) firmly on the pro-choice side of the abortion issue. Christian libertarians have created room within their movement for pro-life beliefs. They have helped support a pro-peace faction within the movement and an anti-death penalty. The presence of Catholics and Catholic thinkers has improved a harmful and still flawed movement.
I can’t even begin to see how one can reconcile libertarianism with Catholic Social Teaching. I have been waiting for Teresa to make a coherent and sane case for it but have yet to see it. Nevertheless, Catholic values are better advanced by having a Catholic philosophical faction (even if not a totally effective or advocating a full dinner pail of Catholic thinking) in all political movements that any attempt to make Catholics march in lockstep in political life.
I think it depends on what brand of “libertarianism” one is talking about. Certainly, anything deriving from Ayn Rand’s Objectivism – which, I’ll admit, is essentially what contemporary libertarians mean by “libertarianism” – is obviously in direct, profound contradiction to Catholic Social Teaching at all levels, from ontology to economics. The same goes for the Austrian School, I think. But I do think there is room for CST when one is talking about the sort of “libertarian socialism” represented by, say, Chomsky; or in the dialogue between distributism and left libertarians, both of whom are opposed to public and private concentrations of power.
I would agree with you, Mark. It might even be too generous to put Ron Paul and the US Libertarian Party in a catagory different from Austrian School and Randist libertarianism. But for a dialogue to begin, you need to have someone with even a vague notion of some elements of CST inside the tent. I don’t see how one defends any form of libertarianism from the standpoint of CST. But there is no reason to call the Holy Inquisition down on them. Some Catholic libertarians seem to to be full of babble and nonsense. Others just respectfully dissent from CST. But enough have suffiecent intellectual depth that they have shifted their movement to a less flawed one. God bless them.
Two random points:
first, I cannot see Gingrich beating Obama: most opinion polls at this point put Obama over Gingrich with a double-digit lead (as opposed to Romney, who is in a dead heat or trailing Obama slightly).
Second, I cannot see Ron Paul winning the general election. His views will not withstand general, sustained scrutiny. He is too far from the mainstream—indeed, he is happily at home in the extreme right wing. He attracts attention now in a longing, “gee whiz” sort of way now for some of his particular positions. Once the media begins to assess the full package (assuming they do) He would be defeated in a landslide.
The Gingrich surge has been so precipitous that head-to-head polls with the president really don’t mean much yet. If he wins, say, Iowa and South Carolina, that will change in a hurry. Newt can energize the GOP base in a way Romney never could, and I think that gives him fair shot at winning next November.
You’re right about Ron Paul, of course. He could never win the nomination for all the wrong reasons, and he couldn’t win the White House for all the right reasons.
“He could never win the nomination for all the wrong reasons, and he couldn’t win the White House for all the right reasons.”
Well put.
Yeah, I also suspect Newt would lose to Obama in the general. Unless he gets The Donald endorsement, of course.
It’s very irksome that neither party’s established orthodoxy permits sensible thought on the war. Both pretty much push for it indefinitely, lives, treasure, and civil liberties be damned.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: the Republican and Democratic parties are two dead ends in the same blind alley.
Mark:
I agree with you here. Not sure if it’s for the same reasons…
I completely agree with you. I urge caution to those who say that their is only a libral and conservative way and just accept that. Choosing the lesser of two evils is like putting a band-aid on a man who is dieing. It is two long tunnels leading to the same place. I don’t like it, and frankly it has got to change. Hilaire Belloc said that in order to attain a semi-perfect society that we need to convert the vast majority to Catholisism. We need to elect a leader who will give the best to the lowliest of us and help them so that they may attain enough confidence to seek out faith. When God said feed the hungry and clothe the naked He was on the right track for many things.
After seeing Henry’s and Mark’s comments here, and reading the comments on Kelly’s Ron Paul post, I’ll reiterate a request I’ve made before: it would be nice to see a serious discussion here on VN about the Catholic concept of subsidiarity and the related possibility of different levels of government having different roles. Besides Kelly (who seems to be open to such ideas), on VN I generally see only blanket condemnations stating that ideas about limited government and libertarian-leaning economic policies are Satanic and antithetical to Catholic social teaching. I know you’re all very thoughtful people and that you’re not condemning subsidiarity, so I honestly want to understand your perspectives, but the blanket condemnations don’t help me.
I’ll try. The Catholic concept of subsidiarity has limited, if any, connection to the conservative concept of limited government and libertarian economics. There have been distractions, not enhancement, of Catholic conversation by conservatives throwing out the term “subsidiarity”.
The Catholic idea that social issues should be addressed by the lowest social organ that is able to properly and effectively resolve those issues presumes the importance of social organs. It says nothing in support of conservative individualism or sense of personal liberty. Secondly, it speaks to social organs, not exclusively to government. So a large multinational corporation determining all aspects of worker wage and benefits would be less honoring subsidarity than local union-management negotiations, particularly sense a local union president is closer to a worker than the CEO of a Tokyo based corporation. Even the federal government would be closer. But labor unions, because they allow direct participation by workers, have long been a preferred means of subsidiarity by the Church.
Subsidiarity speaks to effectively addressing problem, not leaving them unresolved. So if a lower level has not been effective at, say universal health care, it needs to be addressed at a higher level. It does not say “every man for himself.”
A practical example of subsidiarity in American social welfare might be SNAP benefits (formerly Food Stamps). The program is federally financed with very general standards set at that level and a coordination with the food production sector (farmers and distributors). It is administered at a lower level by states and outreach is done in large part by non-governmental community based organizations. Actual food delivery is by the private sector, both involving that level and not disconnecting beneficiaries from the normative means of food purchasing.
Kurt writes, “A practical example of subsidiarity in American social welfare might be SNAP benefits (formerly Food Stamps). The program is federally financed with very general standards set at that level and a coordination with the food production sector (farmers and distributors). It is administered at a lower level by states and outreach is done in large part by non-governmental community based organizations. Actual food delivery is by the private sector, both involving that level and not disconnecting beneficiaries from the normative means of food purchasing.”
You’re saying the best level to finance food stamps is the federal; the best to administer is the state; and the best to deliver is the private sector.
I would think that subsidiarity would call for local funding as well as delivery of food to the local needy.
You’re saying the best level to finance food stamps is the federal; the best to administer is the state; and the best to deliver is the private sector.
Exactly!!!
I would think that subsidiarity would call for local funding as well as delivery of food to the local needy.
It hasn’t worked very well when tried, but I’m open to case it would work today. Remember subsidarity does not say do everything at the lowest level. It says do it at the lowest effective level. I’m prepared to listen as to why it would be effective to do it locally.
You seem to have an absolute view of subsidiarity which colors your perception. I don’t think the contributors of VN see subsidiarity as a sometime applied principle to overrule. Like solidarity, I think they tend to see it as a gradation, with it being more or less respected in a given instance. Additionally, on some topics like international finance and health care, many folks have come to the position that subsidiarity is best respected by ordering at a higher level than the individual or even the local government.
Thales, for the record, I don’t consider conventional libertarianism to be “Satanic” at all, so please don’t equate my views with those of Henry, who can speak for himself. I do consider Ayn Rand’s Objectivism to be evil, and I would hope you would, too. As for the Austrian school, I consider it’s general orientation to be wrong, not diabolical.
You invoke “limited government,” without seeming to realize that advanced industrial capitalism requires a large and active state to intervene in order to correct the economic instability and social dislocation it routinely creates through the destruction of truly “free” markets. Modern economics is often represented as a contest between two polar opposites, Keynes and Hayek. In fact, they are the two pillars in the development of what Belloc called “the servile state.” Hayek crystallized the classic theoretical case for unregulated capitalism, but acknowledged that it was unsustainable in practice. Keynes – who said of “The Road to Serfdom,” Hayek’s most important work, “Morally and philosophically I find myself in agreement with virtually the whole of it” – picked up the challenge and developed a set of presciptions designed to stabilize, and therefore sustain, the capitalist system. Those prescriptions have in fact sustained it with a remarkable degree of stabiity for the past 60 years, until the Keynesian consensus came under ideological assault by those who wished to roll back Keynes’ work.
The fact is that the followers of both Hayek and Keynes are essentially advocates for the corporate state: Hayek’s followers by necessity; Keynes’ followers by design. By contrast, I consider myself a distributist, which is the only economic system that in my opinion finds the proper balance between subsidiarity, solidarity, the common good, the dignity of persons and the primacy of the family. As I mentioned in my comment to Kurt, to the extent that libertarianism promotes truly free markets by the dismantling of inhuman concentrations of power, I can consider myself a libertarian (or at least a friend of libertarianism). But to the extent that it is simply Social Darwinism moved into the realm of economics (as in the case of Hayek and Rand), it has to be rejected.
Mark:
I’m impressed with your clarity of expression here.
Kurt, M.Z., and Mark,
Thanks for your thoughtful posts. This the type of thing that I’m looking for!
Thales, you really owe it to yourself to pick up John Medaille’s new book, “Toward a Truly Free Market.” John is a leading distributist, professor at the University of Dallas, and a sometime commenter here. He shows how from an economic view, the principle of subsidiarity is almost impossible to reconcile with either capitalism or socialism, but is inherent in distributism. You’ll learn a lot and gain a new perspective on what we all typically assume to be a linear spectrum of economic options.
Mark,
Thanks for the book recommendation — it’s something I should look at. I’m actually familiar with distributism, and it’s the economic view I lean most towards. So I pretty much agree with your comments in their entirety, and like you, I lament the fact that economic theory is generally represented as two polar opposites. I’m under no illusions that free market capitalism is the key to authentic human freedom and to a society in accord with the Church’s social teaching, and thus I see the necessity of limits in the free market. I’m right with you on your position that “to the extent that libertarianism promotes truly free markets by the dismantling of inhuman concentrations of power, I can consider myself a libertarian (or at least a friend of libertarianism)… but to the extent that it is simply Social Darwinism moved into the realm of economics (as in the case of Hayek and Rand), it has to be rejected.” (I’m not as familiar with Hayek as I should be, so I don’t have the confidence to reject him as you do, but as for Rand’s Objectivism, I’m right with you in rejecting that as an absolutely terrible understanding of the human person and society as a whole.)
So, as a leaning distributist, I see the problem of Big Government and Big Corporation — and so I see the need, in some areas and through certain societal structures, of limits on government and limits on corporations. What these limits should be and how our society should be structured so as to encourage human flourishing is a difficult question, but one that is very important to consider. As it is a difficult question, thoughtful and careful and nuanced debate is necessary. Unfortunately, I sometimes get the impression that such a debate is not happening on VN, with blanket condemnations of the notion of “limited government” and of any libertarian/conservative-leaning economic suggestion which (in my opinion) might actually be supportive of a distributist system and/or of a system in accord with CST, and with blanket support for every progressive/liberal-leaning economic suggestion which (in my opinion) might not be supportive of a system in accord with CST.
Now I know that this impression of mine is a gross generalization, and I acknowledge that I was unfair in grouping VN posters together. I know that all VN posters are intelligent and well-meaning people who are honestly seeking to live in accord with the Church and with Truth, so I try to have an open mind in not dismissing them out of hand even though I sometimes disagree with them. Similarly, I consider myself a well-meaning person honestly seeking to live in accord with the Church and with Truth (I don’t know about intelligent :) ), and so that’s why I’m sometime bothered if I get the impression that ideas with which I see some merit are getting dismissed out of hand. I’m just appealing to a more thoughtful debate on these very complex matters.
Is there such a thing maybe as libertarian extremism? Keynesian economics created the strongest middle class in the world 1933-1979. Upward Mobility is in a downward death spiral thanks to supply-side.
Aside from libertarianism, Keynesian successes and the utter failure of supply-side economics, I think Newt Gingrich is the absolute worst candidate any party could run for President of the United States! I mean, really….Newt Gingrich? Youv’e got to be kidding.
The Grand Old Party is imploding!
The Grand Old Party has changed into the Greedy One Percent :)
Thales:
Re your comment of December 9, 2011 2:22 pm, I agree with you entirely (insofar as I understand distributism).
More evidence that a vote for any Republican other than Ron Paul in 2012 is a vote for war:
http://takimag.com/article/marco_rubio_vs_rand_paul#axzz1g6u1ipUt