4 Responses to “Re: Levin ad nauseam”

1. Tripp DeMoss, on June 30th, 2009 at 5:59 am Said:

   The intellectual smugness displayed by these pseudo-conservatives or Burkean Whigs or Lockean paleoliberals or Kantian post-right wing monarchists, “ad nauseam” is laughable. Does this magazine have an overriding ethos? Some sort of credo to designate itself beyond the trite musings of anti-conservative, somehow pro-statist wannabe philosophes? Honestly, calling conservatism and even classical liberalism “statist”? What do you call statists/leftists then? Libertarians? Anarchists? Trotskyite pro Hegelian absolutists? Make up your damn minds!

2. Nathan P. Origer, on June 30th, 2009 at 6:24 pm Said:

   Tripp, I’ve yet to figure out to whom you could possibly be referring at Post Right when you throw out accusations of pro-statism.

   No one, as far as I know, has called conservatism statist. I’ve repeatedly called Mark Levin a statist, which he is. I’ve also called him “the antithesis of conservatism”. You may disagree with me on this, which is your prerogative, but it is intellectually dishonest of you to suggest that anyone has called conservatism “statist”. I’ve gone to great lengths to argue that conservatism and communitarianism are anti-statist; this is why I’ve done my best to distance conservatism from classical liberalism, whatever overlap exists.

   And yes, I do believe that classical liberalism is statist. I’ll direct you to Mr. Larison yet again: http://www.amconmag.com/larison/2009/02/18/statism/

   [M]ost people who call themselves conservatives are, when you press them, essentially classical liberals, and classical liberals did not have a “dogmatic aversion to statism,” either. By comparison with their traditional conservative and monarchist foes in the 19th century, they were advocates for centralism and the expansion of the role of the state in the name of reason and liberty. Standardization, rationalization and uniformity in law and regulation were what most classical liberals prized, which is one reason why they tended to be strong nationalists hostile to the customs and privileges of regions and local parlements. The separation of modern strands of classical liberalism from nationalism (i.e., some forms of libertarianism) is a curious by-product of 20th century American politics, and I am guessing that this owes a great deal to influence of exiled liberals from central Europe on the evolution of these strands of American classical liberalism.

   Most of the American Right and Left — the mainstream, the mushy center — all descend from classical liberalism. “Conservative liberal” is a much more appropriate, if still not entirely accurate, moniker for American conservatives of the mainstream variety. As conservative liberals, they’re still statist, just as left-wing liberals and some leftists are.

   Then again, left-conservatives and anarchists are neither “right-wing” nor statist; both can be conservative, though. I’ve already called myself an “Aristotelian anarchist”.

   Your participation in debates here at Post Right is, rest assured knowing, appreciated and welcome. However, a little more intellectual leg-work and a little less silliness would be nice.

3. Nathan P. Origer, on June 30th, 2009 at 6:26 pm Said:

   Tripp:

   Here, find why, as an anti-statist, I am neither a libertarian nor a “conservative”:

   http://nathancontramundi.wordpress.com/2009/02/19/why-im-not-a-libertarian-or-a-conservative/

4. SJ Mitchell, on July 2nd, 2009 at 8:00 pm Said:

   The “great one” has got scoreboard. Read it and weep!

   NY Times Best Seller List

   Hardcover Nonfiction
   Top 5 at a Glance
   1. LIBERTY AND TYRANNY, by Mark R. Levin
   2. HORSE SOLDIERS, by Doug Stanton
   3. OUTLIERS, by Malcolm Gladwell
   4. A BOLD FRESH PIECE OF HUMANITY, by Bill O’Reilly
   5. RENEGADE, by Richard Wolffe

Leave a Reply