I am a bit piqued at the response the Lewrockwell columnists have given to Glenn Beck. I know that he is not perfectly libertarian he loves Lincoln and the indisoluble union and the believes intervention in the Iraq War was good, I know Glenn looks really bad here, but Lew seems to be fine with having Pat Buchanan write for his colums and Murray Polner.
While I generally like Pat Buchanan he also loves Lincoln and believes the union needed to be preserved. He even said so on MSNBC with Chris Matthews when Pat was defending Lee’s right to seceed. Pat seems to want to have is cake and eat it too Lincoln was right and so was Lee! Also Pat Buchanan in his “Republic Not and Empire” was generally infavor of Manifest Destiny the war of 1812; the Mexican War and some, if not all Indian Wars, and the Union conquest of the South were just, while Gleen apposes the Idea of Manifest destiny (at least in theory, his support of the Iraq War is hard to square with this stance).
Also Pat is a protectionist and apposes absolute free trade, something I do not think Glenn (at least in theory) approves of protectionism. Know I don’t say this to be unfair to Pat, I generally like him, but to make a point.
And Murray Polner he is a radical collectivist statist from the left. He is even worse then Glenn and Pat.
While I realize Glenn is a work in progress I believe it is hypocrtical to lampoon Glenn for loving Linclon and the indusolible union and yet allow Pat Buchanan to write as a columnist and even worse to allow Murray Polner who is the worst statist of the buch.
Lastly for all of Glenn’s real failings he has done more than almost any man I know to spread the word about the Globalists desire for a One World Government and the perverse Progressive/Communist influence in American history. I mean credit is given where credit is deserved, as well as blame.
Everything I have read on print by Patrick Buchanan clearly indicates that the man was against the Civil War and Lincoln and clearly saw it as a an aggression against the South.
What he says in public speeches or on TV is a softer version of all his stances. Buchanan is strictly antiwar, but praised Bush Sr. for being serious in war in his 1992 RNC speech. He did say that at least Bush Sr. was a worthy man to command soldiers into war, because he himself was once a soldier and at a very young age, but Buchanan’s opposition to the Gulf War could not be clearer.
Aside from the stances there is also the issue of sincerity. Buchanan is sincere, Beck is an actor.
Being consistently antiwar Murray Polner is much closer to being a libertarian than Beck will ever be. Besides what matters in an article is the content. Not the political identification of the author.
“Being consistently antiwar Murray Polner is much closer to being a libertarian than Beck will ever be. Besides what matters in an article is the content. Not the political identification of the author.'”
Well Pulmer is a leftist statist, that is very far from Glenn Beck, also Kurt Russel is an actor, does that make him insincere about his libertarian leanings? Being anti-war is not only the only litmis test for being a libertarian. Would you say that all the anti-war communists during the Vietnam were were libertarians? If content is what matters then why does Lew not use Glenn’s work against Woodrow Wilson, but Glenn and Lew dislike him so in the name of content show Glenn’s anti-Wilson work. Also if a consistant anti-war stand makes one more of a libertarian than Glenn then you would have to agree that Howard Zinn is the most libertarian of all. His stance against US wars is better than Pat, or Glenn, which of course stranse credulity. Yet Zinn was an anarcho communist which Rothbard riduclued, with good reason.
“Aside from the stances there is also the issue of sincerity. Buchanan is sincere, Beck is an actor.”
What does that matter if they are both wrong about Lincoln and the Civil War?
“Everything I have read on print by Patrick Buchanan clearly indicates that the man was against the Civil War and Lincoln and clearly saw it as a an aggression against the South.”
Read his “Republic Not an Empire” there he supports the war of 1812, the Mexican War and Lincoln’s war. Now he might have changed his mind and if so please direct me to his latest works.
I didn’t say it was a litmus test. But it is the required first step to being a libertarian. The antiwar Vietnam-era leftists had at least made the first necessary step to becoming libertarians (unknowingly). Beck has not.
Probably because there are better critiques of Wilson out there than those by Beck. Libertarian revisionists historians have been highly critical of Wilson.
It matters in regard to the issues that Beck is superficially good on. He doesn’t believe in anything other than the idea of himself as a celebrity and the size of his wallet. He is an unprincipled person, willing to turn on a dime. There is no value in him professing beliefs that he does not actually hold.
He has a team that browses the internet looking for fresh content that may appeal to his target demographic and then he puts on a show. That is it.
I am glad if he played a role in your becoming more familiar with libertarian ideals, also there was a period when I tried to catch his shows, I just don’t think he is an example of a libertarian in any way.
Pat is interesting in that he on some issues he has interesting and well-researched opinions. Even though some of his opinions and conservatism are atrocious.
Overall he may not have the right principles to be a philosopher or an intellectual. But on many issues, he can write interesting things.
His book on World War 2 is an example of Pat’s ability to write. He is worth reading because he has honed his ability as a writer.
Glenn on the other hand is sort of anti-intellectual on almost every issue. Even if were to agree in some superficial way on something, there is always someone else who can say it better and in a more interesting way.
I also think that Lew and Pat are both Roman Catholics (Lew also gave time to Joe Sobran for this reason); so they may have some bond in that realm. Whereas as Beck is Mormon. Not saying Lew just likes Catholics, but I’m sure Lew reads a lot of Catholic writers and has some affinity for those in that faith that have interesting opinions. On the other hand, Lew actually has a filter for middle-brow Catholic-types like Buckley. Who, although had 'style and a big audience, were far from actually worth reading.
I’ll just never understand how anyone can defend the south…
Attack Lincoln, awesome. Stand up for states-rights, I’m down.
Support slave society (and call yourself libertarian)…what? The southern culture had to go. There is nothing aggressive about the emancipation proclamation (Yes, I know it came after the war started).
Saying the North was wrong is not the same as saying the South was right.
The Emancipation Proclamation has always seemed like kind of a joke to me. It didn’t apply to any territory controlled by the North at a time when slavery was still legal in the North (as far as the federal government was concerned… I think some states had ended it). I’ve heard some people call it a war measure designed to get slaves to revolt against the women who were running the plantations (since the men were off fighting). I don’t know if that was really Lincoln’s intention, but regardless the Emancipation Proclamation had a very minimal effect.
There were Slave States fighting on the Yankee side, like Maryland. There was no plan among Marylanders to abolish slavery - it was all about money and politics and punishing the states that hurt their business interests. As we all already know.
There were crooks on all sides, but consider this:
Slavery was abolished across the entire world without gunshot, except in Haiti and US.
600,000 people were killed to protect corporate interests affiliated to the President.
How many non-Americans come from countries where any more than 600,000 people died in a war to protect corporate benefits provided by the government?