Erick Erickson is still too wet behind the ears to appreciate how National Review made purging conservatives from the movement its persona, Twitter just puts that on steroids

Catholics excommunicate. Protestants self-excommunicate. Get with it, Erick.

 

 

 

 

 

National Review’s Own Struggle With “Ideological Diversity”:

For Murray Rothbard, the history of National Review was largely a story of exclusion. “And so the purges began,” Rothbard recounted in a 1992 article. “One after another, Buckley and the National Review purged and excommunicated all the radicals, all the nonrespectables. Consider the roll call: isolationists (such as John T. Flynn), anti-Zionists, libertarians, Ayn Randians, the John Birch Society, and all those who continued, like the early National Review, to dare to oppose Martin Luther King and the civil-rights revolution after Buckley had changed and decided to embrace it.” 

That policy of excommunication continued to the present. Over the years, the magazine has fired or stopped publishing figures like Joseph Sobran (an editor who should have been fired for his anti-Semitism and racism but was not let go until criticizing Buckley in 1993), Peter Brimelow (an editor who was excessively anti-immigrant) and Ann Coulter (who was fired in 2001 after writing a column arguing saying that the United States should “invade [Muslim] countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity”).

Blame the libertarians for handing Romney his loss in 2012, not conservatives

Third parties bled away over 60% of the few votes Romney lost by in his failed eastern strategy in Election 2012.

Mitt Romney's bid to win the White House failed by 64 electoral college votes, all of which he narrowly lost in an eastern strategy in just four states by a total of only 429,522 popular votes:

Florida, lost by 74,309 votes, where third parties garnered an unbelievable 90,972 votes;

Virginia, lost by 149,298 votes, where third parties garnered 60,147 votes;

Ohio, lost by 166,272 votes, where third parties took a whopping 101,788 votes;

and New Hampshire, lost by 39,643 votes, where third parties took 11,493 votes.

That's a loss for Romney of 64 electoral college votes, enough to have taken him from 206 to 270 to take the presidency, losing 429,522 total popular votes in just four states where third parties all told took 264,400 votes, 61.5% of the total needed by Romney to win.

This isn't to say that those were all necessarily Republican votes which went third party, but fully 50.5% of the 264,400 were cast for the libertarian candidate, Gary Johnson of New Mexico, who had been a Republican candidate for president until late 2011 when he was excluded from the Republican debates. At that point he bolted to the Libertarian Party, and openly stated his intention to play a spoiler role:

“I hope that I would get labeled as a ‘spoiler’ from the standpoint of people actually focusing on what it is I am saying, and that this changes the way whoever wins governs,” Johnson told Sunshine State News in an exclusive interview Saturday at the 2012 Ron Paul Festival.

Combine the pique factor around that with the natural alienation felt by libertarians toward a Mormon candidate who was himself socially conservative in his habits and loathe to exercise himself on behalf of libertarians' usual limited government ideas and you can make a case that it was libertarians who cost Romney the election, by casting spoiler votes, staying away from the polls entirely, or even voting for Obama out of spite.

This is a better explanation for the Romney loss than some mythical 4 million conservatives staying away from the polls in 2012 as Rush Limbaugh keeps saying. The numbers themselves disprove that, as Romney garnered 1 million more votes in 2012 than McCain in 2008. It was a much closer election than the (mostly libertarian) punditocracy wants you to know.

Conservatives, most of whom are Christians, aren't put off by abstainers like Mitt Romney the way libertarians might be (many Christians are abstemious too), and Christians find it much more morally problematic to stay away from the polls, or to vote out of spite, in a way which libertarians would not. Christian voters are nothing if not preoccupied with their moral and social responsibility, but libertarians care little for that.

In fact, withdrawing from social responsibilities is elevated to the level of a moral principle by libertarians. Staying away from the polls is a John Galt tactic straight out of the playbook from Ayn Rand. It's an ongoing and adolescent fantasy of theirs. It's not a Christian tactic, which is to say it's not a conservative tactic. Conservatives love their country too much to let it go down the drain, and they actively admired Mitt Romney for his commitment to and long record of public service even if his religion and social policy positions bothered them.

It remains a question if Republicans can expect to succeed in future with a brood of vipers in their party such as the libertarians. Republicans should reconsider their tilt toward libertarianism and seriously ask themselves whether things might not go better for them if they more actively pursued the social conservative vote. From the Christians Republicans can expect forgiveness, but from the libertarians only vindictiveness. Isn't that how the Bushes got elected after turning their backs on the Reagan revolution? Isn't that the conceit of moderate Republican presidential aspirants still today?

Why isn't that an easy call? After all, the libertarian Ron Paul who bitterly lost to Romney in the Republican primaries never left the Republican Party, but he never endorsed Mitt Romney either: "I don’t fully endorse him for president,” he said, as late as August 2012, less than three months before the election. Message to libertarians: good ahead, stay home, see if I care.

Call it an ironic payback to Romney, whose moderate Republican father likewise wouldn't endorse the conservative Barry Goldwater after losing to him in 1964, but it's also another sign in a long list of signs that libertarians have more in common with liberals than with conservatives.

They're content if they too can defeat Republicans.

Like flies on manure, the libertarians swarm to any story about Ayn Rand

CNBC.com has a story up celebrating the 110th birthday of Ayn Rand, here (I don't recall seeing one for Ronald Reagan this week, whose 104th it was), entitled "Ayn Rand is 110 and still in your face after all these years".

Well, she wouldn't be in your face this week if it weren't for CNBC. And I swear the Randians use Google Alerts to swarm the comments section for any story that pops up about their heroine. CNBC even egged them on with an online poll embedded in the article.

Those of us old enough to have voted for the Gipper remember the critical verdict against Ayn Rand from the likes of Reagan's intellectual compatriots William F. Buckley Jr. and Whittaker Chambers, and against libertarians generally from people like Russell Kirk, all of whom insisted that man does not exist for his own sake, implying a transcendent, as opposed to a purely immanent, moral order. It was that precisely ideological character of Objectivism, that theological mistake, which made it but the other side of the totalitarian coin which Ayn Rand still carried in her pocket from the USSR, and which American conservatives instinctively rejected.

Libertarian free-trade presidents named BUSH get the most blame for lost manufacturing jobs

Since Jimmy Carter took office in January 1977, during whose term manufacturing jobs reached their zenith of 19.5 million, 5.6 million net manufacturing jobs have disappeared, and with them the middle class lives to which they gave birth and from which other good-paying, middle class service jobs had been spawned.

Manufacturing jobs had risen steadily from their post-war low in February 1946 at 11.9 million to their 1979 height, just before Ronald Reagan brought us the Libertarian Revolution in the guise of conservative Republicanism. He gave us both Alan Greenspan in 1987, Fed Chairman and disciple of Ayn Rand, who steered the country right up to the rocks before jumping ship in 2006, and a quixotic message of freedom and free-trade which has made the investor class rich while middle class families have seen their lives wrecked under Reagan's libertarian successors who presided over the export of their good jobs to foreign countries. 

The two Bush presidents in particular, George Herbert Walker and his son George W., get the blame for most manufacturing jobs lost since the 1970s peaks. And George W. far and away gets more blame than anyone else, exporting fully 80% of the net jobs lost:

Carter +0.8 million

Reagan -0.6 million

Bush I -1.3 million

Clinton +0.3 million

Bush II -4.5 million

Obama -0.3 million.

The last thing this country needs in 2016 is a BUSH named Jeb, or a PAUL named Rand.

The Ayn Rand worshipper wearing the glasses went on to ruin the country in 2008, nobody else

And Michigan's 3rd Congressional District, once represented by Gerald Ford and now by Justin Amash, still reeks with the putrid smell of libertarianism's incoherent ideology.

The problem with free-market ideology in our time isn't about the tax code, it's about patriotism

Free-marketeers in our time want to wipe away the favors of the tax code, many of which go to the middle class in the form of credits and deductions, and to end the taxes on capital which they say deprive the middle of opportunity. 

That seems to be the upshot of the libertarian attempt to co-opt the meaning of the Dave Brat victory over Eric Cantor as expressed by Kim Strassel of the Wall Street urinal, for one. Central to that thesis is poo-poo-ing the importance of the immigration stance of Eric Cantor, which was attacked by Brat with the support of anti-amnesty conservatives, especially Laura Ingraham, and complaining about "the insane complexity of taxes".

What the kerfuffle shows is that Dave Brat is a mighty conflicted person, as are all libertarians, some more some less, a condition they share with liberals, and that he may end up being worse than the man he now replaces. Brat spent much of the campaign talking about closing loopholes and simplifying the tax code, but opposed more immigration because Americans are having massive trouble finding work. The better angels of his nature, all Christian, were at work there. But to his free-market self, there should be no reason why citizenship shouldn't be free. Why should there be a law restricting it to those born here? The federal government has no role "making my life work", he has said. See how well your life works when there's no army to stop an invasion, and there's no will to create one. Just ask Arizona.

Immigration is an issue which ought to direct the attention of the American right toward the bigger picture of what has happened to this country since the Reagan revolution slashed taxes, but hasn't because the right is now obsessed with principles over people. It has become as "ideologized" as any leftist camp. In fact the political discussion on the right deliberately obscures how libertarianism has already impoverished the many and rewarded the few. Some of its adherents today actually foresee an American future more starkly drawn that way, as did Ayn Rand. It isn't capitalism which is to blame for all the income inequality, it's libertarianism.

With the permanently lower tax regime in the US since Reagan also came a headlong plunge into global free trade which has created vast middle classes abroad where there were none before, at the expense of our own. The anchor manufacturing industries of the middle class in this country were exported to places where labor was cheaper, leaving the hollowed out shell of a service industry economy behind to pick up the pieces here.

Where's the patriotism, I'd like to know? Neither side wants to touch the trade argument, mostly because they are all profiting from the new status quo while we are fed a bunch of lies about who are the real conservatives. The answer is none of them are. They've all betrayed us and joined the global investor class where borders no longer matter.

To be a conservative in our time is to be for families with children here, for good jobs here, and for tax and trade policies which prop up those things here and put Americans first, not foreigners and disloyal Americans and disloyal American businesses.

If that's too complicated for you, maybe you shouldn't be in office.  

Rush Limbaugh, Confused About Conservatism, Talked Up Ayn Rand's ATLAS SHRUGGED Just Last September

Here.

And also in May 2012 in "Atlas is Starting to Shrug" here, steering another caller to the book and drawing parallels to current members of the 1% abandoning the rest of us.

Committed conservatives understand the difference between conservatism and libertarianism and choose the former. Rush still thinks there's room for both under a big tent, which just shows he does not fully understand how libertarianism is inimical to conservatism.